Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

American atheist feels misunderstood, attacks Uncommon Descent

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

Apparently, “Angry by Choice,” the star of this post “Precious: American atheist finds ENCODE to be bullshot science,” noticed “a spike in traffic” on the post. It was actually more of a mini-spikette at our end, but never mind. Anyway, he posted a response here. We can’t quote most of it, for reasons that will be apparent. However,

I am an atheist, and proud to state that. How that relates to my post on how I perceive science is being sold seems irrelevant. I also have black hair, albeit with some gray, why not title the post: Precious: Graying American finds ENCODE to be bullshot science. I am a parent so maybe: Precious: American dad finds ENCODE to be bullshot science. I’m also a scientist, which seems relevant. It’s more relevant to my post than my views on god, my hair color, or parental status. But you know what, me being a scientist is not relevant to uncommondescent’s post. In fact, I’ld argue it undercuts the strength of their post. Pointing out I think their god is hooey, is essentially poisoning the well so that their readers, conservative christians, will not bother reading my post or thinking. (I was going to write more after ‘or thinking,’ but realized I didn’t need to.)

Spanish proverb: He who loses his temper has lost the argument.

Pos-Darwinista writes to ask,

How can such a person be an university professor?

[Is he? Really? My, my. – O’Leary for News ]

Does he use these foul mouthed words in the classroom? I bet he does. Two years ago I gave a talk about ID in a Brazilian public university for some 1.200 Biology students, and was shocked with the wild foul mouthed talk given by the evolutionist professor, that I opened my talk with these words: Professor So and So, after your joking talk, it will be pretty hard for me to sell my fish, but let’s do business here! I got profound silence from a wild laughing audience that paid close attention to my talk on ID and made a lot of questions in the Q & A section.

Well, that’s today’s Darwinism for ya: Long on profanity, short on viable ideas.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Note: One of our post authors is a learned gentleman in the Caribbean who simply will not permit his Canadian (British Commonwealth) colleague to use bad language, hence she tries to avoid it.

Comments
vel:
Evolutionism? Nice try, it is the theory of evolution , not evolutionism.
Can you please link to this alleged theory? Or is Darwin's all you have? If so that is evolutionism. BTW evolution by design is still evolution and it would be opposite of evolution via differing accumulations of genetic accidents (again, evolutionism).
But since ID deals only with an unknown designer and therefore has no basis to determine what goals the unknown designer might have, one cannot rule out evolution as a mechanism for those goals. ID with an unknown designer is not the opposite of evolution.
Yes, it is and for the reasons provided. Deal with them.
Every child is a slightly different design from it parents, reproduction is a major mechanism of evolution.
You have no idea what ID is and you have no idea what you are talking about. Heck your position has to start with reproduction as it can't explain it.
Maybe, but unless what you are designing is immaterial, design requires manipulation of material processes.
So what? The immaterial thoughts, ideas and concepts are the key to design. One can refute any given design inference by demonstrating purely materialistic processes can account for it
Still wrong,
You are wrong.
human designs can mimic nature.
Can they? Example please.
But those fields makes assumptions about the capabilities of the designers .
IDists can also.
This option is not available to ID.
LoL! It is available to people. Just because ID doesn't care about the designer, for obvious reasons, doesn't stop anyone from assuming/ speculating about it.
Unless you are saying because a person can fall out of a boat by accident,it disproves the possibility that they were pushed.
If there isn't any evidence the person was pushed then we don't add a pusher.Joe
June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Also, this: "reproduction is a major mechanism of evolution" is not true. But we'll have to wait for another post another day to flesh it out.Eric Anderson
June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
velikovskys:
But those fields makes assumptions about the capabilities of the designers.
Nope. Not in any meaningful sense. In fact, it is by seeing and studying the designed artifacts that the investigator learns about the capabilities of the designer. As my Russian colleagues would say, you have it "exactly right, but backwards."Eric Anderson
June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
joe, Thanks for admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about. Newton’s rules refer to causes and design is a known cause Mechanism" a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about." Newton's rules are a mechanism of scientific reasoning. As for ID, I am just deferring to your expertise"Materialism is the position that is a step-by-step paradigm, ie a mechanistic position. ID is not." Since ID is goal oriented and evolutionism is not, they are opposite. Evolutionism? Nice try, it is the theory of evolution , not evolutionism. Now if you want to say ID is philosophy not science, OK. But since ID deals only with an unknown designer and therefore has no basis to determine what goals the unknown designer might have, one cannot rule out evolution as a mechanism for those goals. ID with an unknown designer is not the opposite of evolution. Unguided evolution is not a design mechanism. Every child is a slightly different design from it parents, reproduction is a major mechanism of evolution. Yes, thoughts and concepts are immaterial. Maybe, but unless what you are designing is immaterial, design requires manipulation of material processes. That process is design as well. One can refute any given design inference by demonstrating purely materialistic processes can account for it Still wrong, human designs can mimic nature. And since you cannot say anything about your designer, you cannot be sure It cannot manipulate those materialistic processes undetected to actualize its designs. Correct? That is how it works in archaeology, forensic science and SETI. But those fields makes assumptions about the capabilities of the designers . This option is not available to ID. Unless you are saying because a person can fall out of a boat by accident,it disproves the possibility that they were pushed.velikovskys
June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @84: Thanks for the clarification (and your patience). I apologize if my sarcasm filter was not attuned. I now realize you were making my same point with your prior comment.Eric Anderson
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
vel:
That Newton’s rules are natural and mechanistic,or that ID is neither?
Thanks for admitting that you don't know what you are talking about. Newton's rules refer to causes and design is a known cause.
True but since evolution is mechanistic and ID is not, they cannot be opposite.
Since ID is goal oriented and evolutionism is not, they are opposite.
An unknown designer does not refute evolution as its design mechanism,
Unguided evolution is not a design mechanism.
They use immaterial processes to create material designs?
Yes, thoughts and concepts are immaterial.
One cannot refute that an unknown designer with unknown capabilities for unknown reasons at an unknown time could design an unknown something.
One can refute any given design inference by demonstrating purely materialistic processes can account for it. That is how it works in archaeology, forensic science and SETI. Just because you are unable to do so is not ID's problem.Joe
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Joe, Reference please. That Newton's rules are natural and mechanistic,or that ID is neither? If two theories are opposite then demonstrating one refutes the other. True but since evolution is mechanistic and ID is not, they cannot be opposite. An unknown designer does not refute evolution as its design mechanism, unless one knows the goal and abilities of the designer which ID cannot speak to. Known designers don’t use materialistic processes- They use immaterial processes to create material designs? IDists have said exactly what will refute ID. One cannot refute that an unknown designer with unknown capabilities for unknown reasons at an unknown time could design an unknown something. I will concede that you are scientifically illiterate. I would only worry if you thought otherwisevelikovskys
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
A few people above have asked what is my evidence for materialism. Of course it depends a bit what you mean by materialism but broadly speaking it seems to me the domain of supposed immaterial phenomena has gradually shrunk as science progresses and there is no reason why should not continue until there is nothing left that could be immaterial.
Of course it depends a bit what you mean by immaterial. As pointed out above, even matter isn't made up of matter.
That’s not a very good description – but I am short of time and sleep.
That is completely immaterial.Mung
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Eric @ #26
Why are you asking for a mechanism? Take some time to think about why you phrased the question the way you did and you will realize that you are wedded to a mechanistic outlook.
Right - that was my point. I believe someone else on this thread asked about "the mechanism of design", or something like that.
BTW, while you’re at it, please explain what mechanism caused you to write your comment @21. And don’t give some vague unscrutinizable claim about neurons firing and such. We’re looking for a concrete, detailed mechanism that caused you to write what you did, as opposed to some other different comment. Inquiring minds want to know.
Again, that's the key point. There is no mechanism that causes the choices I made in writing a comment. I designed the comment for a purpose. We speak about doing something "by design" - it means, "for a purpose". So it's not only that my choices of words was not determined by a mechanism, but the actual purpose or intention for writing was not a function of a mechanism. So to ask for the mechanism that causes design is a philosophical problem more than a scientific one.Silver Asiatic
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
A few people above have asked what is my evidence for materialism.
Don't feel bad if you cannot present any- nobody ever has.
Of course it depends a bit what you mean by materialism ...
LoL!
...but broadly speaking it seems to me the domain of supposed immaterial phenomena has gradually shrunk as science progresses and there is no reason why should not continue until there is nothing left that could be immaterial.
That is Mark's opinion and it isn't evidenceJoe
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
"Atoms are not things" Werner Heisenbergbornagain77
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
A few people above have asked what is my evidence for materialism. Of course it depends a bit what you mean by materialism but broadly speaking it seems to me the domain of supposed immaterial phenomena has gradually shrunk as science progresses and there is no reason why should not continue until there is nothing left that could be immaterial. That's not a very good description - but I am short of time and sleep.Mark Frank
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
Of course I have no experience with natural processes creating symbols of monkeys and birds. I doubt anyone has. So what?
And yet humans create symbols of monkeys and birds. You have no experience of this? You attribute this to non-natural processes? But you're an avowed materialist. So what is this vision of non natural materialism that you embrace? How is it to be distinguished from ID?Mung
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
You [Eric #8] paint a picture of materialists being philosophically unable to accept explanations involving design for any aspect of life. It may well be that some materialists hold this position. But I don’t. For me materialism is a conclusion not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary.
Mung:
What, precisely, is the evidence for materialism?
Mark Frank: silence ... Mark believes that materialism is a conclusion which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary. Mark believes that materialism is not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary. Does anyone else see the humor in this?Mung
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
How does one get the attention of a materialist? Is hitting a materialist over the head with a rock more or less effective than placing before the materialist a reasoned logical argument? Why?Mung
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
#49 UB There are rather a lot of people to respond to on this thread and you are quite low down my priority list.
But higher than me. Congratulations Upright BiPed!Mung
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
F/N: The empirical testability of the key design inference is very simple -- show FSCO/I credibly coming about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. And MF impliues that in suggesting if he saw a spider or monkey drawing etched into the far side of the moon he would look for "natural" causes. That is actually the first step (and the two defaults) in the design inference explanatory filter. First, does lawlike regularity tracing to mechanical necessity explain it. High contingency does not fit this. The second default -- all of this has been pointed out to MF, EL et al endless times -- is that high contingency comes about by blind chance. But for reasons again outlined here such does not credibly explain FSCO/I. Where also, FSCO/I is commonly observed coming about, consistently by design. And as the simple fact that Beavers do limited designs indicates, we cannot equate design to human activity. If we were to see diagrams like MF suggested on the Moon, we would rapidly rule out necessity, and chance would not be a good candidate for FSCO/I. This would point to design. We can then go about trying to figure out whodunit, when how etc. KFkairosfocus
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
,,this classical 'digital' information is found to be a subset of ‘non-local' (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
,,,And here is evidence that quantum information is in fact ‘conserved’;,,,
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time 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 Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video https://vimeo.com/39982578
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Moriah Peters - You Carry Me - music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H-zQjgurQ
bornagain77
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
And by using this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum information channel’ of entanglement, physicists have reduced material to quantum information. (of note: energy is completely reduced to quantum information, whereas matter is semi-completely reduced, with the caveat being that matter can be reduced to energy i.e. e=mc2).
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 How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,” http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862
In fact an entire human can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:
Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video https://vimeo.com/75163272 Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible? As experiments in relocating particles advance, will we be able to say, "Beam me up, Scotty" one day soon? By Corey S. Powell|Monday, June 16, 2014 Excerpt: Note a fascinating common thread through all these possibilities. Whether you regard yourself as a pile of atoms, a DNA sequence, a series of sensory inputs or an elaborate computer file, in all of these interpretations you are nothing but a stack of data. According to the principle of unitarity, quantum information is never lost. Put them together, and those two statements lead to a staggering corollary: At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics say you are immortal. http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyaug/20-the-ups-and-downs-of-teleportation
Thus not only is information not reducible to a energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality both energy and matter ultimately reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism (John1:1). Or related note, encoded ‘classical’ digital information, such as what William Dembski and Robert Marks demonstrated the conservation of,
Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://www.evoinfo.org/index/
,,i.e. classical 'digital' information, such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA,
Every Bit Digital: DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics - Casey Luskin Excerpt: "There’s a very recognizable digital code of the kind that electrical engineers rediscovered in the 1950s that maps the codes for sequences of DNA onto expressions of proteins." http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo12/12luskin2.php The Digital Code of DNA and the Unimagined Complexity of a 'Simple' Bacteria - Rabbi Moshe Averick - video https://vimeo.com/35730736
bornagain77
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
velikovskys, The empirical falsification of Darwinism is as such. Darwinian presuppositions hold that all the information, (and even consciousness), in life is merely an ‘emergent’ property of a material basis, but it is now found that beyond space and time, non-local, 'quantum information', which is not reducible to a material basis, is found in molecular biology. Moreover, this ‘spooky’ non-local quantum information, though at first thought to be impossible to maintain in ‘hot and noisy’ cells, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule:
Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011 Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules. http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quantum-entanglement-hot-systems/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009 Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. per daily galaxy DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011 Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That's a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/
etc.. That quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
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 Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html
etc.. etc.. In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Moreover, is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,
Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. 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. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
bornagain77
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
All materialists have to deny semiosis or have to say that purely materialistic processes produced it and we will figure that out some time in the future. However seeing that living organisms depend on the timely delivery of proteins it seems very unlikely that living organisms existed without the current semiotic system up and running. The model is Yaris, et al., and a huge bowl of faith.Joe
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
If Mark wants to merely deny semiosis during protein synthesis, he is free to do so. Empiricism isn't suited for everyone. However, if he wants his denial to have any substance whatsoever, then perhaps he can start by telling us why the system requires the discontinuity between the arrangment of nucleotides in the codon and the presentation of a specific amio acid for binding. Surely those who deny semiosis have a coherent model to explain this. What is it? Even better yet, he can tell us why the system must preserve that discontinuity. Surely he has a model. What is it?Upright BiPed
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Mark Frank to Upright Biped:
I know you think that there is some kind of symbolism going in a cell.
It is a fact that there is symbolism going on inside of the cell. The fact that codons encode/ represent amino acids (do not become them) is proof of that.
You are wrong.
Then all of biology is wrong. Congratulations.Joe
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Ba, What if something is not caused by natural processes? For instance? Would that present a problem for Darwinism? It might be Or is Darwinism forever unfalsifiable in your mind? (excuse me, foprever unfalsifiable in your deterministic robot brain?) I can think of several ways evolutionary theory could be falsified, can you in your dualistic mind falsify the immaterial explanation ?velikovskys
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
Yes. The only way of refuting ID is to show that an alternative works.
That is how it works in archaeology, forensics and SETI. Again, how do we refute materialism?
There is no way of showing if the design alternative works or not.
I don't even know what that means. We can show that design works. We cannot show that sheer dumb luck works.
PS Do you mean evidence for materialism or for evolution by natural processes?
Materialism as the OoL is very much part of the design inference and the OoL dictates the subsequent evolution.Joe
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
vel:
Not really, since Newton’s rule apply to natural mechanistic theories, and ID is neither.
Reference please.
Second,one can not refute an explanation by merely proposing an alternative.
If two theories are opposite then demonstrating one refutes the other.
To refute ID one would have to show an unknown designer would be incapable of producing a materialistic process, since known intelligent designers use materialistic processes in design, ID can not be refuted.
Known designers don't use materialistic processes- well if materialistic processes produced them then they would be using materialistic processes. And there isn't any evidence for that. IDists have said exactly what will refute ID.
I will concede that ID may be useless as scientific explanation without complete knowledge of all possible materialistic processes and what those processes are capable of.
I will concede that you are scientifically illiterate.Joe
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
I will not pursue it.
Mark, there is a whole growing segment of biology that knows that the cell is semiotic. As for dealing with me about it, I can again understand our reluctance. You cannot provide a refutation of the evidence I present, just as no one else has. No one.Upright BiPed
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Joe #50
Strange, that when all it would take to refute Intelligent Design is actually present positive evidence for materialism, the materialists refuse to take that route.
Yes. The only way of refuting ID is to show that an alternative works. There is no way of showing if the design alternative works or not. PS Do you mean evidence for materialism or for evolution by natural processes?Mark Frank
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
ub, Are you equating the Nazsca lines found in Peru to someone saying they saw Jesus on a piece of toast? No, though there is the case of the Face on Mars, I was responding to your question Is there a conceptually plausible “natural explanation” for the symbolic image of a monkey to appear on the far side of the moon? Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant We are talking about Mark Frank suggesting that if the Nazsca lines were discovered on the far side of the moon, he would look for a “natural explanation” for that find. Joe contends per Newton's Rules and the explanatory filter that is the proper way to proceedvelikovskys
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
UB #56 I know you think that there is some kind of symbolism going in a cell. You are wrong. But this has been discussed endlessly elsewhere I will not pursue it.Mark Frank
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply