Would this Origin of life model work?

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Dan_Eastwood

If this is a conclusion, then there should be some way to falsify it. Are you really willing to allow the possibility the divinity of Jesus could be falsified? If not, then you are only restating your assumptions. If so, then it’s just plain wrong, because that’s not a question that can be addressed scientifically.

Read this:

“Jesus taught that God created one man and one woman (Mark 10:6) and mentions Abel, a son of Adam and Eve in Luke 11:51. Was Jesus wrong in His beliefs? Or did Jesus know there were no literal Adam and Eve and He was simply accommodating His teaching to the beliefs of the people (i.e., lying)? If Jesus is wrong in His beliefs, He is not God. If Jesus is intentionally deceiving people, He is sinning and therefore cannot be the Savior (1 Peter 1:19).”

Now, there are many models that have been proposed to accommodate the common descent model, but I found everyone of them to have serious flaws. Ultimately, the best model that has no apparent flaws and is testable is the common design model.

@Dan_Eastwood

Before moving on to this “new” old objection, I would like to note that you have abandoned the current objection objection under discussion, which was …

By failing to make any claims or limits whatsoever about the Designer, ID has effectively shot itself in the foot with respect to falsification. An unknown and unknowable Designer might do anything at all, at any time, and there is no means to falsify related hypotheses - not even in theory.

Does your response, “Right,” signify that you agree?

Well, no. I thought you were the one that was conceding. I have already provided strong evidence that shows how there is a strong analogy between biochemical and human information. This allows us to infer (rather than assume) that the intelligent designer who created the first life was human or a common designer. More importantly, it allows us to constrained the hypothesis in a testable manner like what we do in forensics and archaeology.

Do you want to argue that the evidence does not show this like @Tim? If not, then let’s focus our attention with the other objection.

@Dan_Eastwoopost:207

Let me note that this definitely wasn’t part of your stated hypothesis, and therefore constitutes a moving of the goalposts. If you want to restate the hypotheses, that is OK, but you keep making amendments and it is hard to follow what you are arguing.

That’s because I am changing it based on feedback from you guys. So if what I am presenting is wrong or incoherent, then you can see that I willing to change it.

Besides, my theory has not changed much from before:

"A quantum consciousness must exist to create all life on earth "

Definition of coconsciousness: self creation and movement of particles (I.e. self collapsing wave-function)

Definition of life: digital information in the form of math and linguistics

@Dan_Eastwood

You mean it’s falsifiable? You keep claiming this, but when asked “How?”, only state further assumptions about the nature of God. I understand that you believe in God, no objection there, but you form of proof cannot work.

No, I have. You just did not agree with the scientist that described how my theory is falsifiable because he does not have the credentials of a biologist…

@Dan_Eastwood

Not at all convinced. I seriously question the claim that Sean Carroll would say that God can be falsified by demonstrating evolution (he is a physicist, not a biologist, after all). Further, I question the premise that any concept of God as we understand can be defined, much less falsified, by material evidence.

However, Sean Carroll understands and has expertise on quantum physics while you have suggested that you don’t. On the other hand, you suggested that…

@Dan_Eastwood

@Meerkat_SK5

Yes, this would be the case but only if I was trying to extend the hypothesis outside the bounds of biochemistry or biology and into physics. But, this hypothesis’s scope is only within the bounds of biochemistry and potentially biology and thus the experiment I proposed would falsify it completely under those terms and scope.

I hate to bear bad news, but chemistry is physics, including biochemistry.

This means that you question Sean Carrol’s claim even though he is more qualified than you to speak on the matter.

@Dan_Eastwood

I don;t see how this help you? Quoting Tim Folger in that Wiki article …

If Penrose is right, gravity yanks objects back into a single location, without any need to invoke observers or parallel universes.

Emphasis mine.

This is an additional experiment that is employed to establish that a self-existing consciousness existed prior to the inception of contingent minds.

The only differences (I see) is that my hypothesis and the methods to test it strictly apply to biochemistry AND past events. But, it is important to note that I am not relying on Penrose’s additional postulation and methods to be correct or proven correct for my hypothesis to work. Instead, I am relying on the Orch-OR theory’s support of human consciousness AND those experiments or observations I just mentioned before.

With that said, it is a possible method to disconfirm whether God is guiding evolution in the present day, nonethless.