Paul Nelson to speak in Toronto, Saturday, November 5, 2011

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 2, 2011

Biology, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here. Plus the Ontario premiere of Metamorphosis – the film on why butterflies make nonsense of Darwinism.

RHCCC: 9670 Bayview Avenue, Richmond Hill, L4C 9X9

Here: 2:30 PM – Registration
3:00 PM – Lectures: (Room D57) “The Assumptions of Atheism” by Bruno Cordovado
(Room D47) “Are Humans Just Like Animals?” by Geoff Francis
(Room D52) “The Human Genome – Evolution’s Achille’s Heel (Ascent or Descent?)” by Richard J. Van Seters
(Chapel 103 – G/F) “Be Ready to Give Answers” by Christine Williams
(Room D55) “The Universe: By Design or By Chance” by Don Wallar
(Room D43) “Is “Darwinian Evolution” Self-Contradictory?” by Michael Paré
4:15 PM – Refreshments
4:30 PM – Viewing of Metamorphosis DVD
Masters of Ceremonies (Peter Koropatwa)
5:30 PM – Refreshments – DVDs and books will be available to purchase
6:15 PM – Introduction of speaker by Michael Paré
6:30 PM – 7:30 PM Keynote Lecture by Dr. Paul Nelson: “Intelligent Design: the Beauty and Design of Butterflies”
7:30 PM – 8:00 PM – Q&A

Comments

Saying it was designed is teh first step to understanding it and says quite a bit by itself. Look how much we have learned by saying Stonehenge was designed.Joseph_{November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Fossfur
This is an ID blog. I want to read the ID explanation* for these incredibly complex molecular machines. Not another two decades of complaints about Charles Effing Darwin.
Good luck with that. "it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories" - W.A. DembskiGinoB_{November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Further notes:
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201
It is important to note that the following experiment actually proved that information can be encoded into a photon while it is in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, that was/is held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into a entity that is not physically real but is merely abstract? It simply would not be possible!
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, Quantum mechanics dictates some strange things at that scale, so that bit of light could be thought of as both a particle and a wave. As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once, carrying the "shadow" of the UR with it. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly , can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0? state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon???
John 1:1-5 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. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Jeremy Camp – The Way (Official Music Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q6o4sbndVE Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
bornagain77_{November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Fossfur 'Just saying they were ~~designed~~ randomly evolved is not an explanation. There much better!!! Fossfur, let's just go ahead, cut to the chase, and falsify the whole materialistic foundation of neo-Darwinism since you seem to think that neo-Darwinists have any leg whatsoever to stand on scientifically: notes: The following describes how quantum entanglement is related to functional information:
Quantum Entanglement and Information Excerpt: A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in Quantum mechanics, relates how quantum entanglement is related to quantum teleportation in this following video;
Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation – Anton Zeilinger – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5705317/
A bit more detail on how teleportation is actually achieved, by extension of quantum entanglement principles, is here:
Quantum Teleportation Excerpt: To perform the teleportation, Alice and Bob must have a classical communication channel and must also share quantum entanglement — in the protocol we employ*, each possesses one half of a two-particle entangled state. http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html
And quantum teleporation has now shown that atoms, which are suppose to be the basis from which ALL functional information ‘emerges’ in the atheistic neo-Darwinian view of life, are now shown to be, in fact, reducible to the transcendent functional quantum information that the atoms were suppose to be the basis of in the first place!
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
Thus the burning question, that is usually completely ignored by the neo-Darwinists that I’ve asked in the past, is, “How can quantum information/entanglement possibly ‘emerge’ from any material basis of atoms in DNA, or any other atoms, when entire atoms are now shown to reduce to transcendent quantum information in the first place in these teleportation experiments??? i.e. It is simply COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for the ’cause’ of transcendent functional quantum information, such as we now find on a massive scale in DNA and proteins, to reside within, or ever ‘emerge’ from, any material basis of particles!!! Despite the virtual wall of silence I’ve seen from neo-Darwinists thus far, this is not a trivial matter in the least as far as developments in science have gone!! further notes:
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
In what I find to be a very fascinating discovery, it is found that photosynthetic life, which is an absolutely vital link that all higher life on earth is dependent on for food, uses 'non-local' quantum mechanical principles to accomplish photosynthesis. Moreover, this is direct evidence that a non-local, beyond space-time mass-energy, cause must be responsible for ‘feeding’ all life on earth, since all higher life on earth is eventually completely dependent on the non-local ‘photosynthetic energy’ in which to live their lives on this earth:
Non-Local Quantum Entanglement In Photosynthesis - video with notes in description http://vimeo.com/30235178
To solidify my basis for inferring the necessity of a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain photosynthesis, I would like to refer to the quantum wave collapse of a photon;
Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/ Wave function Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space
bornagain77_{November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Fossfur, all you’ve done is post self- proclaimed predictions of a conference you’ll most likely not even attend (although I hope you do) and belittle another persons post.
Well, I cannot fault your comprehension. But would you seriously care to wager against my prediction that Paul Nelson's talk will not even attempt an ID explanation of metamorphosis? Anyone? Should I lose I promise to apologise to Bornagain77 for 'belittling' his post.
At least put an effort into suggesting how Neo-Darwinism might be able to account for these incredibly complex molecular machines.
This is an ID blog. I want to read the ID explanation* for these incredibly complex molecular machines. Not another two decades of complaints about Charles Effing Darwin. *Hint: Just saying they were designed is not an explanation.Fossfur_{November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

This post is Neo-Darwinism at it's best. Fossfur, all you’ve done is post self- proclaimed predictions of a conference you’ll most likely not even attend (although I hope you do) and belittle another persons post. Instead of coming onto a discussion board and throwing plastic hand grenades around, It least put an effort into suggesting how Neo-Darwinism might be able to account for these incredibly complex molecular machines.KRock_{November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

So you concede that there are no Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system, and yet rather than honestly admit this glarring lack of evidential support and concede that you were deliberately misleading in your claim that 'the irreducible flagellum went down', you offer belittling comments towards me? How very shallow of you!bornagain77_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

The irony of your post, indeed the complete lack of self-awareness, is touching. I had just predicted that Paul Nelson's talk would consist of nothing more than glossy videos, admonitions that Darwinism can't do X,Y and Z and a total lack of any 'design' explanation. And then right on cue you pop up with a bunch of glossy videos, admonitions that Darwinism can't do X,Y and Z and not even a hint of a 'design' explanation. And to top it off you end with the Jesus; whoever it was that said ID was simply Christian apologetics in a lab coat must be eating their words right now!
There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.
Whereas the scientific literature is simply bursting at the seams with 'design theoretic' explanations....oh wait, that's not right is it? Ah well. Please don't bother replying, it'll save you the trouble of cut 'n' pasting a ton of stuff that a) you don't understand and b) nobody reads.Fossfur_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Fossfur you state:
Are we to assume butterflies are to be the next poster child for ID? Seeing as the irreducible flagellum went down like a lead outboard motor among the scientific community.
Really??? Seems I didn't get the memo that the flagellum, or any other molecular machine, has been originated by the purely material processes of Neo-Darwinism.
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630 Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls the Bacterial Flagellum “the most efficient machine in the universe." Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ Excerpt: Electron tomography of frozen-hydrated bacteria, combined with single particle averaging, has produced stunning images of the intact bacterial flagellum, revealing features of the rotor, stator and export apparatus. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220602286X "One fact in favour of the flagellum-first view is that bacteria would have needed propulsion before they needed T3SSs, which are used to attack cells that evolved later than bacteria. Also, flagella are found in a more diverse range of bacterial species than T3SSs. ‘The most parsimonious explanation is that the T3SS arose later," Howard Ochman - Biochemist - New Scientist (Feb 16, 2008) Peer-Reviewed Paper Investigating Origin of Information Endorses Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design - A.C. McIntosh per Casey Luskin - July 2010 Excerpt: many think that that debate has been settled by the work of Pallen and Matzke where an attempt to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum rotary motor as a development of the Type 3 secretory system has been made. However, this argument is not robust simply because it is evident that there are features of both mechanisms which are clearly not within the genetic framework of the other. Engineering at Its Finest: Bacterial Chemotaxis and Signal Transduction - JonathanM - September 2011 Excerpt: The bacterial flagellum represents not just a problem of irreducible complexity. Rather, the problem extends far deeper than that. What we are now observing is the existence of irreducibly complex systems within irreducibly complex systems. How random mutations, coupled with natural selection, could have assembled such a finely set-up system is a question to which I defy any Darwinist to give a sensible answer. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/engineering_at_its_finest_bact050911.html
further note; Machines, which far surpass man-made machines in 'engineering parameters', are now being found inside 'simple cells'.
Articles and Videos on Molecular Motors http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzlkNjYydmRkZw&hl=en Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - 2010 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5066181
And in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist
The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,
‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,
Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,
,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
Further notes:
Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology
Shoot even the movement of the bacterial flagellum is mediated by 'non local', beyond space-time mass-energy, quantum action. Thus, if even the movement of the flagellum can't be adequately explained by 'local' material processes, how in blue blazes can you have the audacity to claim that the purely material processes of neo-Darwinism have completely explained the origination of it???
INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state. http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf
Music and verse:
MercyMe - "Move" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EuV5goIkb0 Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
bornagain77_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Are we to assume butterflies are to be the next poster child for ID? Seeing as the irreducible flagellum went down like a lead outboard motor among the scientific community. Let me make a prediction about Nelson's key-note talk. After an introductory pre-amble in which the audience will be enchanted by high-definition time-lapse photography there will then follow a litany of amazing facts about metamorphosis that Darwinism can't explain. (Keep in mind that this follows a whole day of laymen waxing lyrical on fields they have no apparent expertise in; combined with a side dish of religious soporifics e.g.“Be Ready to Give Answers” by Christine Williams; and a hearty meal to boot - the audience's senses should be sufficiently receptive to Nelson's presentation.) Allow me a further prediction; Nelson will not even attempt to explain just how the process of metamorphosis came to be other than that vacuous verb 'design'. Consistent with the ID movement's past behaviour it is enough for them to merely point a finger at those features of the living world that are difficult, complex and may not yet yield a satisfactory explanation, while all the while casting aspersions upon those who, from an admitted position of ignorance, are at least making an attempt at understanding.Fossfur_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Lol.. No, that premiere was eight years ago and it's been nothing but reruns since..KRock_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

"The Ontario premiere of Metamorphosis" I thought you were referring to Dalton McGuinty. Explanation for non-CanadiansSCheesman_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply