Would this Origin of life model work?

You follow that with a length quote. The only citation is to Genesis and to 1 Corinthians. But, quite clearly, the quote does not come from either of those.

You are presenting theology, without identifying your source.

I’ll note that the theology of original sin is not accepted by all Christian denominations.

But can at least thank you for finally being clear that this is all theology, and that it was never science.


The Resurrection, Evidence, and The Scientist - The Veritas Forum - The Veritas Forum

Is the Adam and Eve story to be understood literally? | GotQuestions.org

I’ll note that the [Round Earth theory] is not accepted by all [scientists].

But can at least thank you for finally being clear that this is all [pseudoscience], and that it was never science.

So, in other words, (1) no, and (2) it doesn’t.

Why? Who wrote it and why is it relevant? Please stop with the unattributed quotes. It’s rude and unprofessional.

That was word salad. It’s not an argument, and it’s not a response to any of my questions. Nor was anything that followed. You’re just talking to yourself, and I don’t see why you bother.


Doing a bit of detective work, it seems to be written by one Ollie B Fobbs Jr. – “an Ordained Minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ”, and prolific (if largely self-published) author of unknown qualifications (his bio harps on about the hardships of his youth, and completely neglects to mention his education).

Whether you should value his opinion higher or lower than ‘something some random guy at the pub said’, I’ll leave you to decide. :thinking:

1 Like

Did Jesus write any of the other Gospels?


Yes of course, that is your belief which I am not questioning. The difficulty is your argument. Read this, again:

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.

Your own arguments have led to this conclusion. If your prior assumption is true (your beliefs) then your argument must be flawed.

I really do not see how you could reach such a conclusion if you has read and understood what I have written.

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.

AND I have noted based on my knowledge of Information Theory, which strongly overlaps statistical theory, that you don’t know what you are talking about. Sorry.

Yes, it hasn’t changed much from before. You have done the equivalent of paining racing strips on your car and expecting it to go faster. The fundamental flaw remains (and the car won’t go).

Incorrect; I disagree with your interpretation of Carroll. Even then, it’s an argument from authority to Information Theory that you do not understand.

Again, my argument is not based on QM, except to the extent that probability and Information overlap with my own expertise. It’s also irrelevant to the question of falsifiability, even though you refuse to recognize it.

Again no, I question your interpretation, with good cause.

No mind is required is a contradiction of your claim, not supporting authority. Also a correct interpretation of Carroll, to my understanding.

“Present day” - Another shift of the goalposts? Your hypothesis is that a quantum mind must exist, not that God is guiding evolution in the present day.

Writing the same thing over and over again does not make it true.


I think, to be fair, that it’s more like painting racing stripes on your house and expecting it to go faster.


I forgot one …

Forensics and archaeology do not claim discovery of intelligence. These disciplines begin with an assumption that humans or natural forces already existed to cause effects or create artifacts. They do not demonstrate that any new unknown force exists*, only that humans or other known forces have acted.

`* Unknown forces can be hypothesized of course, but that generally falls under physics. Magnetism and the Higgs Boson are good examples.

But despite knowing there are important differences, you are using the term “same”.

1 Like

Fuz Rana is (1) not an expert in language or entropy, established or otherwise, and (2) wrong in at least four different ways in those two sentences:

  • human languages do not all carry the same amount of information.
  • the amount of information carried by a human language varies depending on how it’s used, so the comparison is meaningless.
  • Human languages do not display the same entropy content (see e.g. here: “While a direct estimation of the overall entropy of language yielded values that varied for the different families considered…”
  • amount of information and entropy content are not the same thing.

It’s not surprising you are spewing misinformation and fallacies if you’re relying on pseudoscientists like Rana.


My point was that if this story did not happen at all, then it would directly challenge the divinity of Christ because of what he said about that event as well as Noah’s flood. The common design model is derived from the Genesis account that Jesus suggested is true.

A testable common design model is essentially providing an indirect way of testing for the divinity of Christ. So we actually can address this scientifically despite what you said. In fact, I can bring up quotes from scientists who have contested what Jesus said, which shows that it is scientific.

Did you though? I only vaguely remember you commenting on this and I think it was pretty brief. Can you elaborate on your objection or at least copy and paste what you said before?

No no no, you are misunderstanding what I said again about having falsifiable predictions versus a falsifiable hypothesis.

When I suggested that your objection was much more profound and devastating if it was not adequately addressed, I was talking about in terms of verifying the hypothesis. If God does not have a human nature in a similar fashion , then we can’t use the human observer as part of the experiment in order to verify or falsify the prediction that a universal common designer guided evolution entirely or provide falsifiable predictions. In other words, there would not be a common design model.

But, we can still disprove this hypothesis altogether and Sean Carrol described that way in the video. Now, if you feel that I misinterpreted him, then please explain how because he is a theoretical physicist who specializes in quantum and classical mechanics, which is what my hypothesis is fundamentally based on NOT information theory.

Right, but my argument is based on it. Instead of accepting this, you associate my argument with ID theorists who base their entire argument on information theory. Again, your objection and expertise in information theory only applies to the part of my theory that argues for a common designer rather than a generic intelligent designer that has an unknown nature about it.

No, Penrose was referring to a contingent human mind in that piece.

I have actually changed the hypothesis recently to try to be more cohesive and thus, falsifiable rather than unfalsifiable like you suggested. Here it is…

Quantum Consciousness is a vital mechanism that causes life on earth to change over time”

Definition of Quantum consciousness: non-local choice to create and move particles

Definition of life: digital information in the form of math

Same here. I am assuming that Jesus Christ has acted as the fundamental cause for life to change over time on earth since he is the only human we know of that is both divine and human.

And ,remember, this is not based on an assumption upon another assumption. It is an assumption based on an inference that is derived from previous experiments and observations that I argued suggest a Divine consciousness created life.

However, this Divine consciousness would have to be human or a common designer like us in order to make and justify the connection between Jesus and the intelligent designer that created life in the first place.

This is why I am looking forward to your information theory objection where you explain why those studies do not show how DNA and human language are analogous or that this analogy was only meant as a metaphor.

Remember, they don’t have to be the “same” in order for the argument to work. They just have to show strong similarities in a non-metaphorical way.

Do you have any biblical scholars that support your claim?

Models of how the Adam and Eve story in light of the common descent model rather than the common design one.

The common design model is essentially taking the Genesis account on face value or as it is intended. That’s it really. Except the model goes further in detail to make it more testable and scientific.

Why? Are we not allowed to make our own arguments now?

Try writing in complete sentences. It’s somewhat more likely that you would make sense if you did. Try that now, and start over.

So now you have to tell us what you think the Genesis account says. Go ahead. Is the universe 6000 years old? Were plants created a day before the sun was? What is a “kind”? How do we recognize them? And so on. No, your model so far goes into no detail, which is one reason it’s neither testable nor scientific. You have yet to deal with any data.

1 Like

I will sort all of that in the next topic.

Then you are starting from the conclusion and trying to find evidence to support it. It would seem that common design does not emerge from the evidence.

Saying you have a testable model is not the same as actually having one.

Argument by definition is a logical fallacy.

Then you would need to explain why, under this model, we would necessarily see a nested hierarchy when human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy.


You always say that, but you never actually do.


That’s because I want to finish my discussion with Dan first.

Yes, you always have a reason for never actually doing, though that reason changes frequently.

1 Like