Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What signifies a real expert is uncertainty

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When the real expert doesn’t really know. Here’s an interesting approach to the question from a political scientist and a business prof:

To better understand the problem of communicating scientific knowledge to the policymakers and the public, it helps to divide the difficulty of questions into three levels. Level-one questions are those that anyone with even modest expertise or access to a search engine can answer. Some political economy questions in this category include, for example, ‘Will price controls cause shortages?’ or ‘Are incumbent governments likely to do better in elections when the economy is performing well?’

Level-two questions are those where only the most qualified experts have something to say. Some political and economic questions that we believe fall into this category are ‘Can we design algorithms to assign medical residents to programmes in an effective way?’ (yes) and ‘Do term limits improve governing performance?’ (no). These are questions for which substantial peer-reviewed scientific literature provides answers, and they can be addressed by what the American philosopher Thomas Kuhn in 1962 called ‘normal science’: that is, within existing paradigms of scholarly knowledge.

Level-three questions are those where even the best experts don’t know the answers, such as whether the death penalty lowers violent crime, or what interest rates will be in two years. Such questions are either not answerable given current research paradigms, or just more fundamentally unanswerable. Much of the scientific enterprise itself consists of distinguishing between when further research or information will make questions answerable or not.

Andrew Little and Matthew Backus, “Confidence tricks” at Aeon

In the last six month, thinking in particular about COVID-19, most of us have heard just about all the contradictory certainty we can stand.

The Voice of Science increasingly sounds like crows squabbling over a biscuit.

Comments
Bornagain77: Sorry I could not be more entertaining for you. But then again, I could care less if my posts entertain. you. Okay, I was just curious about something you said. I'll see what I can find on my own about essentialism, baraminology and created kinds which is what I assume you were referring to.JVL
August 11, 2020
August
08
Aug
11
11
2020
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
JVL states,
I am very much aware of your arguments against unguided evolution. You’ve said nothing new here. I was hoping you’d tell me more about the other notion of species you referenced in a previous reply. But I guess you don’t want to for some reason. I was guessing you were referring to something akin to essentialism or baraminology but that’ll just have to be my assumption without further clarification from you. Never mind. I guess.
Sorry I could not be more entertaining for you. But then again, I could care less if my posts entertain. you. My point all along has been to show that the reductive materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution simply has no place for the immaterial concept of species. In fact, as Logan Paul Gage clearly explained in the article I referenced in post 8, Darwinian materialism entails a denial of true species,,
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.
And as I further pointed out, if your theory denies the existence of 'true species' in the first place. then your theory cannot possibly be the scientific explanation for the "Origin of Species". It is similar to a crazy man running around the street and flapping his arms and claiming that he can fly. He simply can't fly because, as everyone can see, he simply doesn't have the equipment necessary to fly. Likewise, Darwinists lack the necessary equipment to even begin defining what a species truly is. Moreover, it is also interesting to note that the fossil record is 'upside down' from what Charles Darwin himself predicted. That is to say, the fossil record is the complete opposite from what Darwin predicted.
Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video (2:55 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2LDiWeWb4
As Dr. Wells pointed out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. (i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life). What Darwin predicted in his book 'Origin of Species' should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following 'tree of life' graph.,,,
The Theory – Diversity precedes Disparity – graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif
But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.
The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity – graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif
As Erwin stated, “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution is True” – Jonathan M. – December 4, 2012 Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms. Darwin’s theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.” Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that, “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.” Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is “Unresolved” – June 26, 2013 Excerpt: “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.” Erwin and Valentine (p. 340) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/erwin_valentine_cambrian_explosion073671.html
And as Valentine stated,
“Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.” James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of his interview)
And as Goldschmidt and Lewin remarked
“The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97. As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”
And as Chen stated,
Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish Excerpt: “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.” Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm
Moreover, as Stephen Meyer pointed out, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared alongside one another in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
“Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.” Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
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-scientific-evolution.html
Thus, regardless of the fact that Darwin's theory can't even define what a species is in the first place, and regardless of however someone might want to ‘arbitrarily’ classify which species are in and which species are out in any particular classification scheme, the fact of the matter is that Darwin’s theory is falsified as being the correct theory as to explaining what order the various levels of classification should appear. In fact, Darwin’s ‘bottom up’ theory gets the order of appearance completely backwards from what it actually is, i.e. ‘Top Down’. Again, phyla appear first, and various species appear last! Of supplemental note: "Top Dawn" causation is completely antithetical to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists:
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: page 5: A: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics,,,, Life and the brain: living systems are highly structured modular hierarchical systems, and there are many similarities to the digital computer case, even though they are not digital computers. The lower level interactions are constrained by network connections, thereby creating possibilities of truly complex behaviour. Top-down causation is prevalent at all levels in the brain: for example it is crucial to vision [24,25] as well as the relation of the individual brain to society [2]. The hardware (the brain) can do nothing without the excitations that animate it: indeed this is the difference between life and death. The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf ?
To repeat,
“The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone's plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.” - George Ellis
i.e. the computer sitting right in the front of the faces of Darwinists on UD refutes their materialistic theory! Verse,
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77
August 11, 2020
August
08
Aug
11
11
2020
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: I am very much aware of your arguments against unguided evolution. You've said nothing new here. I was hoping you'd tell me more about the other notion of species you referenced in a previous reply. But I guess you don't want to for some reason. I was guessing you were referring to something akin to essentialism or baraminology but that'll just have to be my assumption without further clarification from you. Never mind. I guess.JVL
August 11, 2020
August
08
Aug
11
11
2020
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
JVL at post 9, and as is typical of Darwinists, instead of addressing the irresolvable dilemma for Darwinian materialists for defining what a species actually is, as I laid out in post 8,
The term species is an abstract property and/or definition of the immaterial mind that cannot possibly be reduced to any possible materialistic explanations. i.e. How much does the concept of species weigh? Does the concept ‘species’ weigh more in English or in Chinese? How long is the concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the concept go? Is the concept of species faster or slower than the speed of light? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? Or etc.. etc.. ?.. The concept of species simply has no physical properties that we can measure, and therefore the concept of species itself is forever beyond the scope of any possible reductive materialistic explanation. As should be needless to say, the inability for the supposedly scientific theory of Darwinian materialism, (a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place), to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place!
,,,, instead of addressing that irresolvable dilemma for Darwinian materialists, JVL instead, and again as is characteristic of Darwinists, decided to respond with, as Kf termed it, a 'strawman'
So . . . let me get this straight . . . are all non-swimming snakes the same species? By your criteria? How many species of trees are there? Flies? Butterflies? How about humans? I think if you compared yourself to a native of Papua New Guinea you would probably find many, many behavioural differences.
Yet I, and I suppose JVL, immediately recognizes that not all non-swimming snakes are the same species. Nor do I, and I suppose JVL, have any trouble recognizing that not all tree, flies, and butterflies, are the same species. Nor do I, and I suppose JVL, have any trouble recognizing that a native of Papua New Guinea is clearly a member of the human species. And again the reason that, and I suppose JVL, have no trouble immediately recognizing such clear distinctions for species is that the term species is an abstract property and/or definition of the immaterial mind that cannot possibly be reduced to any possible materialistic explanations. That is to say, that I, and I suppose JVL, have immaterial minds that can readily distinguish between different species. The irresolvable dilemma, which JVL ignored, arises precisely when we try to force fit the immaterial concept of species into the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists. As I stated previously, "The concept of species simply has no physical properties that we can measure, and therefore the concept of species itself is forever beyond the scope of any possible reductive materialistic explanation." And as Logan Paul Gage stated in the reference I cited in post 8,
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.
The insurmountable problems for the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists do not stop just with their inability to define what the abstract concept of species might actually be in materialistic terms. Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no clue how any particular organism might achieve its particular form in the first place. As Michael Denton noted, "despite the attraction of the (genetic) blueprint model there are no “simple linear chains of causal events that link genes to phenotypes” and "to date the form of no individual cell has been shown to be specified in detail in a genomic blueprint."
The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism - Michael J. Denton - 2013 Excerpt: Cell form ,,,Karsenti comments that despite the attraction of the (genetic) blueprint model there are no “simple linear chains of causal events that link genes to phenotypes” [77: p. 255]. And wherever there is no simple linear causal chain linking genes with phenotypes,,,—at any level in the organic hierarchy, from cells to body plans—the resulting form is bound to be to a degree epigenetic and emergent, and cannot be inferred from even the most exhaustive analysis of the genes.,,, To this author’s knowledge, to date the form of no individual cell has been shown to be specified in detail in a genomic blueprint. As mentioned above, between genes and mature cell form there is a complex hierarchy of self-organization and emergent phenomena, rendering cell form profoundly epigenetic. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.3/BIO-C.2013.3
And as Stephen Meyer noted, 'you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan.'
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body-plan. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video – 5:55 minute mark https://youtu.be/hs4y4XLGQ-Y?t=354
Moreover, the failure of the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than 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-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
In fact, in order to explain how any organism might be able to achieve its basic form we are forced to appeal to a cause that is 'outside of time and space. At about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, information must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method.
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484
And indeed, advances in quantum biology which show quantum information to be ubiquitous within biological life ,,,
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
,,, And indeed, advances in quantum biology which show quantum information to be ubiquitous within biological life, now force us to appeal to a beyond space and time cause in order to an adequate causal account for how any organism might achieve its basic form. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement of the cell. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
And as John 1:4 states
John 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
One final note, it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
The implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, "the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604
Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
You should come to a discussion PREPARED.ET
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
ET: You don’t have to understand anyone else’s position if your position has the science and evidentiary support. You just present it and be done with it. I like having conversations with people, even people I disagree with. Sometimes those are the most interesting. And they help you to re-examine your own views which is a very valuable thing. Anyway, why are you criticising that? What's wrong with understanding another point of view? As I said, clearly you are daft. Whatever. I'll just ignore you from now on and wait for Bornagain77 to respond for himself without your strange attempts to hijack the conversation.JVL
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
You don't have to understand anyone else's position if your position has the science and evidentiary support. You just present it and be done with it. As I said, clearly you are daft.ET
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
ET: That figures. Even JVL understands that his position is useless anti-science trope. Trying to understand someone's view is an admission your own is faulty? Really? Seriously, you are not making sense today. I know you're capable of better argumentation than that.JVL
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
That figures. Even JVL understands that his position is useless anti-science trope.ET
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
ET: Perhaps you should focus on your own position. It is incoherent and untestable. It needs your help. You don't have to go on and on if you can't help explain what Bornagain77 was talking about. It's cool. What part of that don’t you understand? Worry about your own lame position. It still has nothing. I would like to understand what Bornagain77's standard of a species is. I'd like to see it defined and spelled out with lots of examples. Is it that hard to provide those things?JVL
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Perhaps you should focus on your own position. It is incoherent and untestable. It needs your help. What part of that don't you understand? Worry about your own lame position. It still has nothing.ET
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
ET: Perhaps you should focus on your own position. It is incoherent and untestable. It needs your help. So you can't or won't help me to understand Bornagain77's position. You're not required to.JVL
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Perhaps you should focus on your own position. It is incoherent and untestable. It needs your help.ET
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
ET: Perhaps you can explain Bornagain77's idea of species with a bunch of examples. Is it the same as Baraminology?JVL
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Unguided evolution has nothing to account for the existence of snakes. So perhaps evos should start there.ET
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: JVL, strawman I was just asking questions so I could understand the criteria better. At the same time various pythons, anacondas, boas, J’can Yellow snakes and J’can Red snakes (which last two IIRC are constrictors) are all different particular species. But many of them have similar 'snakey' behaviours. Well, could someone please give me a reference to the species definition that Bornagain77 was referring to with a lot of examples please?JVL
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
JVL, strawman, genus-differentia leads to categorisation, snakes are vetebrates as opposed to acorn worms, or oak trees. At the same time various pythons, anacondas, boas, J'can Yellow snakes and J'can Red snakes (which last two IIRC are constrictors) are all different particular species. KF PS: News https://iamajamaican.net/news/2015/07/massive-snake-found-in-montego-bay/kairosfocus
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Sev, DV, later today, I will set up a separate thread on your challenge. Meanwhile, we need to clarify here that first, arguments gain persuasive power from appeals to emotion, credibility (esp of authorities), actual fact and logic producing warrant (if successful). Emotions are no stronger than accuracy of underlying perceptions, expectations [rights are not arbitrary impositions], judgements; no source or presenter is better than underlying facts, logic, warrant from these. So too, truth is accurate description of reality, which becomes knowledge through becoming warranted, credibly true, reliable belief. The personal involvement of actual belief does not relativise reasonable warrant, hence objective truth. Credibly true and so reliable is not a guarantee of absolute incorrigible truth in general, this is a soft, common use sense of knowledge. In that context, there are bodies of sound knowledge, partly easily accessible, partly highly technical though there needs to be public accountability on webs of warrant. Ideological impositions such as Lewontin's and Sagan's a priori materialism are not good grounds for warrant, a major issue in sciences. Where, the question of issues, risk and uncertainty come up thus prudence in decision, including that of warrant. In that context, there are many topics where fools rush in whilst actual experts fear to tread. And, treating the public like children in the face of high uncertainty with possibility of black swans and their relatives over the past several months was a case in point. In this context, ideologically driven selective hyperskepticism towards responsible, cumulative evidence has done incalculable damage. KF PS: Linked:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.
And of course, Epictetus:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
(This pulled a you must be logged in, logging in in another tab then doing back helped.)kairosfocus
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: "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. Denial of True Species" So . . . let me get this straight . . . are all non-swimming snakes the same species? By your criteria? How many species of trees are there? Flies? Butterflies? How about humans? I think if you compared yourself to a native of Papua New Guinea you would probably find many, many behavioural differences.JVL
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Seversky comments,
Observing speciation depends on how species are defined. This has been a problem in biology for some time as has been pointed out here. There is a project to try and construct a comprehensive definition but that has yet to report.
Actually, it is impossible for Darwinian materialists to ever provide a comprehensive definition for the term species. And thus, by Seversky's very own criteria of being able to accurately define what a species actually is before you can truly say that you have 'observed' speciation, then, by Seversky's very own criteria, it necessarily follows that no Darwinist, nor anyone else, has ever truly observed speciation.
What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 Excerpt: Enough of species This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what the term ‘species’ actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,”
“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.” – Charles Darwin
That Darwinists have no realistic clue what the term species actually means should not surprising since the term ‘species’ itself is a immaterial categorization and/or definition that arises from the immaterial mind. That is to say, the definition of species itself cannot reduced to any possible reductive materialistic explanation of Darwinian evolution. Darwinists ultimately seek to ‘scientifically’ explain everything in materialistic terms. i.e. Reductive materialism. And yet, if something is not composed of particles or does not have physical properties (e.g., length, mass, energy, momentum, orientation, position, etc), it is abstract, even ‘spiritual’. Numbers, mathematics, logic, truth, distance, time, beauty, ugliness, species, person, information, etc.. etc.. all fall into that category of being an abstract property of the immaterial mind. It is amazing how many things fall into that ‘abstract’ category even though most everyone, including atheists, (“atheists” also happens to be an abstract term itself), swear that they exist physically. Take for instance the abstract concept of species, The term species is an abstract property and/or definition of the immaterial mind that cannot possibly be reduced to any possible materialistic explanations. i.e. How much does the concept of species weigh? Does the concept ‘species’ weigh more in English or in Chinese? How long is the concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the concept go? Is the concept of species faster or slower than the speed of light? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? Or etc.. etc.. ?.. The concept of species simply has no physical properties that we can measure, and therefore the concept of species itself is forever beyond the scope of any possible reductive materialistic explanation. As should be needless to say, the inability for the supposedly scientific theory of Darwinian materialism, (a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place), to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place! Whereas Darwinists cannot even provide a rigid ‘scientific’ definition of what a species actually is, on the other hand, normal people in general, and Christians in particular, have no problem whatsoever recognizing what a species actually is:
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. 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.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Thus since Darwinists have no hope, within their reductive materialistic framework, of ever providing a proper definition of what a species actually is, then, to repeat, it necessarily follows that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly be the proper scientific explanation that purportedly explains the “Origin of Species” in the first place. Of related note, it should not be surprising to learn that the first classification scheme was develop by a Christian, Carolus Linnaeus. ,,, Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic foundation, simply lack any coherent basis from which to develop a proper classification scheme.
Linnaeus: The Christian Carolus was raised in a religious home and had deep beliefs concerning God and nature. It was his belief that since God created the world, it was possible to understand God's wisdom by studying His creation. "The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone. The study of nature would reveal the Divine Order of God's creation, and it was the naturalist's task to construct a 'natural classification' that would reveal this Order in the universe." https://www.crosswalk.com/family/homeschool/christians-in-science-carolus-linnaeus-1368814.html The tree of life gets a makeover - Schoolroom kingdoms are taking a backseat to life’s supergroups By Susan Milius - July 29, 2015 Excerpt: In 1735, Swedish physician and botanist Carl Linnaeus published the first edition of his classi­fication system for nature, incorporating three kingdoms: plants, animals and stones. (Stones never caught on.) In that early scaffolding, evolutionary relationships between organisms didn’t matter. Linnaeus was just striving “to reveal God’s creation to mankind in an orderly manner,” says archivist Gina Douglas of the Linnean Society of London. Charles Darwin wouldn’t nervously publish On the Origin of Species for another 124 years. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/tree-life-gets-makeover
So again, since Darwinists have no hope, within their reductive materialistic framework, of ever providing a proper definition of what a species actually is, then it necessarily follows that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly be the proper scientific explanation that purportedly explains the “Origin of Species” in the first place.bornagain77
August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Seversky @ 5 When you say, "Personally, I’m not averse to the concept of some vast alien intellect but I think you will meet a lot of opposition from Christians to the idea of dehumanizing their God." That is acceptance of ID.BobRyan
August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
Sevresky @ 5 You state, "The fact remains that the evolution of new species in large animals may take hundreds of thousands of years, longer than human beings have been civilized, certainly far longer than the average human lifetime, so we cannot expect to observe such an event in real time. It has been observed in smaller creatures and plants, however." Speciation, meaning macro-evolution, one species becoming a distinct species with distinct genetics to separate it completely from the origin. That is how it is defined. Without pointing to adaptation, which is micro-evolution and the species remains genetically the same. When has macro, not micro, evolution been observed? Everything from e coli to the fruit fly remains genetically the same, no matter how long it has been watched. There was a 30 year study of e coli that came to an end not to long ago and all they found was e coli adapts and remains e coli. 30 years is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years.BobRyan
August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
BobRyan @ 2
Focus on what is known. Has speciation ever been observed and replicated, which is the requirement for any theory to exist.
Observing speciation depends on how species are defined. This has been a problem in biology for some time as has been pointed out here. There is a project to try and construct a comprehensive definition but that has yet to report. The fact remains that the evolution of new species in large animals may take hundreds of thousands of years, longer than human beings have been civilized, certainly far longer than the average human lifetime, so we cannot expect to observe such an event in real time. It has been observed in smaller creatures and plants, however. As for hypotheses, remember that the existence of the neutrino wasn't even suspected until discrepancies were observed between the results of certain tests and what was predicted by the standard model. Wolfgang Pauli proposed a particle called the neutrino that would account for the discrepancies but it took decades before the means to detect them were developed Science is in part an interplay between theory and observation. A theory is still speculative until it is supported by observation but without a theory you don't know what to look for in the way of evidence.
Remove the humanization of God and think of God as something with greater intellect than humans can ever hope to understand. Something put the laws of physics into place, since they could not come around by chance.
Personally, I'm not averse to the concept of some vast alien intellect but I think you will meet a lot of opposition from Christians to the idea of dehumanizing their God.Seversky
August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
Seversky, the blind faith of a Darwinists, (i.e. certainty), in the power of unguided processes to produce the unfathomable complexity of life, far exceeds the blind faith of even the most radical suicide bomber. For instance, Darwinists, without any evidence to support their belief, are absolutely certain that this evolved by accident:
The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution - DONALD DeMARCO - 02/06/2015 Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates. Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies! A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another. Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers. The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution/ The Human Brain Is 'Beyond Belief' by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * - 2017 Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,, Perfect Optimization The scientists found that at multiple hierarchical levels in the whole brain, nerve cell clusters (ganglion), and even at the individual cell level, the positioning of neural units achieved a goal that human engineers strive for but find difficult to achieve—the perfect minimizing of connection costs among all the system’s components.,,, Vast Computational Power Researchers discovered that a single synapse is like a computer’s microprocessor containing both memory-storage and information-processing features.,,, Just one synapse alone can contain about 1,000 molecular-scale microprocessor units acting in a quantum computing environment. An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. To put this in perspective, one of the researchers revealed that the study’s results showed a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.1,,, Phenomenal Processing Speed the processing speed of the brain had been greatly underrated. In a new research study, scientists found the brain is 10 times more active than previously believed.6,7,,, The large number of dendritic spikes also means the brain has more than 100 times the computational capabilities than was previously believed.,,, Petabyte-Level Memory Capacity Our new measurements of the brain’s memory capacity increase conservative estimates by a factor of 10 to at least a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the World Wide Web.9,,, Optimal Energy Efficiency Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.11 ,,, Multidimensional Processing It is as if the brain reacts to a stimulus by building then razing a tower of multi-dimensional blocks, starting with rods (1D), then planks (2D), then cubes (3D), and then more complex geometries with 4D, 5D, etc. The progression of activity through the brain resembles a multi-dimensional sandcastle that materializes out of the sand and then disintegrates.13 He also said: We found a world that we had never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.13,,, Biophoton Brain Communication Neurons contain many light-sensitive molecules such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores, and aromatic amino acids. Even the mitochondria machines that produce energy inside cells contain several different light-responsive molecules called chromophores. This research suggests that light channeled by filamentous cellular structures called microtubules plays an important role in helping to coordinate activities in different regions of the brain.,,, https://www.icr.org/article/10186
bornagain77
August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
The article asks if we can do better. Well, we DID do better in earlier decades. In the 1930s, media and government publications treated expertise with appropriate skepticism, and government-paid experts were generally humble and self-calibrating. The official cult of expertise started sharply and observably in 1946 after FDR died, when Deepstate began reclaiming the territory it had lost. Physicists and doctors and psychiatrists were elevated to official positions, giving legally enforceable orders to all aspects of culture and economy and industry and science. Entertainment became lectures by official psychiatrists.polistra
August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Seversky Focus on what is known. Has speciation ever been observed and replicated, which is the requirement for any theory to exist. Much like the multiverse, it has never been witnessed, which means there is no evidence to support the hypothesis. Remove the humanization of God and think of God as something with greater intellect than humans can ever hope to understand. Something put the laws of physics into place, since they could not come around by chance.BobRyan
August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
What signifies a real expert is uncertainty
So all those theologians who are so certain of God's existence and that they know His will, they aren't really experts?Seversky
August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply