Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

Past behaviour suggests he not only can, but does so frequently that it should be assumed to be the case.

1 Like

The whole point of peer-review level criticism is to make sure the argument is correct and adequate (maybe not the conclusion itself). You don’t get to decide for yourself which criticisms are adequate. If you cannot convince the reviewers then you need to go find a different journal and hope the new reviewers aren’t so picky.

I am not going to just accept what you say simply because you are scientist.

Then perhaps you shouldn’t be asking scientists for their opinion in the first place. Reviewers often give helpful suggestions to improve an article, but it is never the reviewer’s responsibility to do the work for you.

That said, I don’t see any substantial changes from the last round. Perhaps you should give the topic a rest for a while.


Okay then, I guess I fail at complying with YOUR rules in (A). What about B,C, and D though?

I don’t see how these are valid examples of me telling @Tim is flatout wrong with his objection. I am merely pointing out flaws and vagueness with his objections that he needs to address so I can properly decipher and respond to his objections. There is a difference.

I agree but I think you misunderstood what I meant by “adequately” respond.

Right. But, Tim did not do any of this at first. instead, this was the extent of this response…

Every one of your claims distorts and exaggerates the papers’ contents (and your parenthetical "I.e."s distorts and exaggerates them still further ).

Just a bunch of assertions without any detailed analysis. I asked him to elaborate and he did but only on one point.

@Meerkat_SK5, please CEASE AND DESIST quoting me out of context.

I explicitly prefaced that comment with:

Therefore I have already answered your question:

“What about B,C, and D though?”

What I clearly meant was that the same problem applies to those three claims that I identified with (A), the same problem I identified with your first post, the same problem I identified in your revised post, the same problem @John_Harshman has identified in your recent posts on this thread.

Your citations do not substantiate you claims.

As I said above:

So I will not provide “detailed” explanations as to why more of your endless supply of claims are not substantiated by your citations. Suffice it to say, they are of the form: “You claim X, your cited sources do not mention X.”

Finally, I would note that these are not “[MY] rules”, they are rules that appear to be understood by everybody except you on this thread, and appear to be ubiquitous in every form of scholarship I have come across. That you, an apologist, do not appear to consider yourself to be bound by these rules, I see as further evidence that apologetics is not a form of serious scholarship

If those are only Tim’s rules, and they don’t apply to you, then your B,C and D can be quickly and easily refuted.

For example:

This is simply untrue. Origin of life experiments have been successful without any human intervention at all.[1][2]

[1] The Impacts of a Multifaceted Prenatal Intervention on Human Capital Accumulation in Early Life | AEAweb.org
[2] Stantom & Folsom 2019 (deadline.com)

So either abandon claim D (and B and C) or admit that those aren’t just Tim’s rules, but yours too.

Your entire ‘theory’ is “just a bunch of assertions without any detailed analysis”, and you usually repeat rather than elaborate. Don’t criticise others when you are much worse.

1 Like

Right now, I want everyone to evaluate this for me. The line of reasoning archaeologists have used to establish the presence of Hominids in North America is basically no different than the line of reasoning I use to establish the presence of Jesus was during the origin of life era. There are four identical facets to this line of reasoning:

A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA | Nature

Confirmed the Time and Place of Origins


In the early 1990s, road construction crews working near San Diego, CA, uncovered the remains of a single mastodon. Though the site was excavated from 1992 to 1993, scientists were unable to date the remains. Both radiocarbon and luminescence dating techniques failed.

Recently, researchers turned failure into success, age-dating the site to be about 130,000 years old, using uranium-series disequilibrium methods.


Geologists were able to do the same after they found evidence of the first life from the oldest rocks on earth. They discovered viruses in the deep-sea oceanic vents. We also found that RNA viruses represent the most abundant form of organisms within the world’s oceans.

The Appearance of Design


“The archaeologists argued that: (1) the arrangement of the bones and the cobble and (2) the markings on the cobble and the fracture patterns on the bones appear to result from the intentional activity of a hominid. To put it another way, the archaeological site shows the appearance of design.”


I provided studies that show how life is fundamentally defined as digital information, which happens to transcend reality. From the conclusions of the “Is Life Unique” article:

'What is the ingredient missing from inanimate physicodynamics that makes life possible? The answer is formal control mechanisms. This “regulation,” as it most often appears in the literature, is instructed by Prescriptive Information (PI) and its algorithmic processing—both elements being uniquely produced by life. In addition, both elements seem to have been inherent in life at the subcellular level in its earliest and simplest forms…

…All of these phenomena are as nonphysical and formal as mathematics; and unique to life.’

Moreover, there is a resemblance between biochemical language and human language that suggests we are not only displays patterns of conscious agency but one that mimicks the behavior of modern humans:

“The repetitive non-coding RNA sequences resemble that of a natural everyday language, i.e., the essential tool to coordinate and organize common behavior.”

Two genetic codes: Repetitive syntax for active non-coding RNAs; non-repetitive syntax for the DNA archives

Failure to Explain the Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes


The archaeologists explored and rejected alternative explanations—such as scavenging by wild animals—for the arrangement, fracture patterns, and markings of the bones and stones.


Whenever unguided chemical processes under atmospheric conditions were left to themselves without any interference, they did not produce the desired results. Rather, the living state would always subside and turn into useless networks of RNA sequences:

“ Simply mixing chemicals and watching for a living system to appear from the broth seems unreasonable to me. This approach has never worked, and it is not expected to work, at least not if one is limited to the lifetime of a human, let alone the duration of a funding period or a Ph.D. thesis."

Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications

Reproduction of the Design Patterns


The archaeologists confirmed—by striking elephant and cow bones with a rock—that the markings on the cobble and the fracture patterns on the bone were made by a hominid. That is, through experimental work in the laboratory, they demonstrated that the design features were, indeed, produced by intelligent agency.


In the topic “Would this origin of life model work”, I described how synthetic biology and prebiotic chemistry empirically demonstrate the necessary role intelligent agency plays in transforming chemicals into RNA viruses or DNA.

Now, I want everyone to explain to me why my conclusion is invalid even though I am using the same line of reasoning researchers used to establish Neanderthals

This definitely makes it into my collection of most remarkable comments by creationists.


You don’t get to decide which criticisms are adequate either. :wink:

That’s not entirely true, as peer review can have some give and take. Even an incorrect criticism generally means that some alternate interpretation need to be addressed, if only to keep other readers from making the same mistake. Telling another scientist they are “inadequate” in their area of knowledge is another thing entirely.

My point is that you have received a lot of very good critical analysis, and ignored most of it. I will repeat my best advice, one more time:

Simplify. Make each point so clear there can be no question about what it means. When that dust is settled, move on to the next.

I had to put my eyeballs back into their sockets after reading that.

This seems to be a near perfect illustration of Poe’s law.

I’m not an expert on archeology. But I would guess that they had a lot more than a mere vague appearance of design.

This is just fundamentally absurd.

If “life is fundamentally defined as digital information”, then you ought to be able to provide a specific citation as to where we can find that fundamental definition.

Striking elephant and cow bones with a rock could not show that patterns were made by a hominid. They perhaps show that the patterns are similar to what a hominid could produce. You seem to be overstating something there.


It’s fascinating, in a can’t-take-your-eyes-off-the-train-wreck kind of way, that even that article doesn’t say what you claim it does. It doesn’t say “Neanderthals”; it says “unidentified Homo species”. Tip of the iceberg.


The author of which evidently doesn’t understand even the simplest facets of biochemistry.

Only by vague and largely useless analogy.

Even your quote from your source contradicts your point.

No, you made a large number of assertions with citations that either contradicted you or were completely irrelevant to your point. Same as this thread.

Because one is direct evidence specifically for the thing in question, and the other requires about 20 unjustified leaps of faulty logic.


Let me clarify my previous post. When I laid out the four facets to my line of reasoning that mirror the researchers in the study, this was supposed to be a cumulatively argument for why the intelligent designer should be identified as Jesus. I did this exercise because the Orch-OR theory does not establish yet that there was a precursor or self-existent consciousness existing before humans inception . Plus, some of you guys suggested that my methods in establishing this were invalid. Now, let me address everyone’s objections…

Yeah but this time I provided quotes that attempted to show you how my claims were supported by those citations. You did NOT explain why those quotes don’t establish those claims.

Yes, it is your rules because you are being arbitrary with those rules. For instance, you specifically said…

When I provided the article that does this, you started to move the goalpost …

I rest my case

Well, I am not sure what other objections beside yours and @John_Harshman you are referring to exactly that directly apply to my theory. If this is truly the case, then it is probably because it is attacking aspects of my theory that are well established already and the users who are making those objections are not providing counter sources or articles that refute those aspects. Instead, they are making their own judgement from their own field of expertise, which is fine in some cases.

However, I can’t accept these type of objections from them if they don’t have an expertise in the relevant fields in question, such as your objection that Divine action cannot be tested.

BTW, you have not addressed my latest response to your fundamental objection of my theory. I wanted you to assess whether this article supports the claim that there is a resemblance between biochemical language and human language that appear to mimick the behavior of modern humans. Here is a snippet of what I mean:

“The repetitive non-coding RNA sequences resemble that of a natural everyday language, i.e., the essential tool to coordinate and organize common behavior.”

Well, I just recently attempted to do something like this but I am not sure if it worked.

Here it is again: Is Life Unique? (nih.gov)

Well, it is most likely them according to the article but they don’t know for sure. But, you are missing the point of the whole exercise .

Sure divine action can be tested, but it still requires material evidence. To date all such tests have failed to produce positive evidence.

I should clarify: all prospective tests have failed, and retrospective tests don’t show causality(1) and are difficult or impossible to repeat. Both require divine cooperation, and if the Divinity wishes to be revealed there are far easier ways to do it.

(1) not entirely true, but that’s another story.

I have not, and I do not intend to. You are conflating language and information and meaning, and we’ve already been over that a couple of times.

And yet somehow your computer, which exists in reality, works just fine.

And no, life isn’t “fundamentally defined” as digital information. In point of fact, there seems to be very little agreement on what exactly life fundamentall is(and for yet another non-digital perspective on life, see below). This itself should be a hint that perhaps life isn’t fundamentally different from non-life when it comes down to it, but is just another one among innumerable complex emergent physical phenomena.

In my experience, that’s a very bad omen for the beginning of a post from you. And I see that the omen was predictive.

How do you know that? Did you actually read the article?

My point isn’t relevant to your point. It’s just another example of your common tactic: misrepresenting (almost certainly by accident) what your sources actually say or what they mean.

Oh no, I am just going off what the study suggested. I am arguing that the study I provided has conflated those terms. What I wanted to know from you is whether the study actually establishes what I said before. Here is another snippet of it:

…empirical evidence proved the fact that natural languages and codes are determined by a third level of rules besides grammar and semantics, namely pragmatics. Pragmatics represents the level of rules that interconnects the real character users of a natural language or code with its real life situations; this means the context in which a natural language or code user is interwoven…

…RNAs remain the most ancient biological agents that connect information with meaning, in that they interact, based on their nucleic acid syntax that binds to complementary acids of the genetic alphabet. In this way, they create information bearing molecules. However, the meaning of these molecules does not depend on syntax but on pragmatics (context), i.e., its real life function…

I am saying based present experiments and observations. I totally grant that future experiments and observations could show something different, but it would have to be under metabolic-first scenarios for this to be theoretically possible from my understanding of the situation.

That does not say what you claim it says:

“Life pursues thousands of biofunctional goals, not the least of which is staying alive.”

“Life manifests autonomy, homeostasis far from equilibrium in the harshest of environments, positive and negative feedback mechanisms, prevention and correction of its own errors, and organization of its components into Sustained Functional Systems (SFS).”

Those are not descriptions of “information”.

In any case, the cited article gives the author’s view of what constitutes life. That does not amount to a fundamental definition.

Note also: “Every speaker, of which I was one, was required to address the question. No two definitions of life were the same.”

We do not have a fundamental definition of life. There is disagreement about how to best define life.

Ok. It’s complete bollocks. We haven’t found any PreCambrian fossils that show traces of carpentry tools.

Let’s see how it fares at FSTDT.