Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code

One disproof of evolution you may not have heard of involves past lives. It's been discovered that people who are able to get in touch with their past lives can never reach further back than 6000 years. This proves there were no people before 6000 years ago when God created the heavens and the earth.Another disproof of evolution comes from astrology. Astrologers have discovered that all horoscopes cast for any time and place more than 6000 years ago say that no such person could ever have been born. That's because there were no people before 6000 years ago.Yet another disproof of evolution comes from ghost hunters. No ghost hunter has ever discovered the ghost of a person from before 6000 years ago. Anthropologists have discovered that people were much stronger than apes up until the fall. So Adam and Eve were much stronger than apes, but Cain and Abel were not.Another little known fact is that while God was lecturing Adam and Eve about the consequences of eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the dinosaurs snuck up to the tree and ate all the remaining fruit. For this God punished them with instant extinction, scattering their bones throughout the world. Noah never had to worry about saving the dinosaurs because they were already gone by the flood, and their bones became deeply buried.But you're wrong about quantum theory disproving evolution: Quantum theory doesn't prove that everything goes in leaps. I wish it were true, but there's tons of evidence that say no. Examples: High jump: I definitely don't go in leaps. Years: a little less than one out of four. Tree sloths: never. Evil Kneivel: never made it across the Snake River Canyon. Kangaroos: okay, some things do go in leaps.--Percy

I don't know about the QM implications for biology, but there are clearly QM effects at the macro level. American football defenses that use the 2-gap system often have the problem that a tackle passes through both gaps and interferes with himself, which is why observers (usually called fans) attend football games in order to prevent this from happening, since tackles can never be observed passing through both gaps simultaneously. Still, it happens sometimes, and you will occasionally hear a tackle in a post-game interview bemoaning the fact that everyone must have been watching the quarterback, because after he passed through the gap he collided with himself and took himself out of the play.Fortunately this never results in a two-many-men-on-the-field penalty, since if a referee is watching then the tackle only passes through one gap.--Percy

Hi Jaywill!Modulous can speak more than well enough for himself, but since he hasn't replied yet I'll take a swing at this. Modulous wasn't suggesting that if at first you don't succeed you should give up. As I think he pointed out in other parts of his message, the problem isn't that ID hasn't yet found scientific evidence of design in biological systems, it's that they aren't even trying to find evidence of design in biological systems. Their efforts don't go into research for submission for consideration to the scientific community. In fact, they largely ignore the scientific community, except for when they're castigating them.Where ID is actually placing their efforts is in writing books, creating websites, making presentations and so forth to the lay public. Their efforts go into trying to convince school boards and legislatures that ID is science when if ID was really science they would instead be trying to convince scientists that ID is science. I would encourage students of science to study whatever areas attract their interest, but to definitely not study ID as an example of how to carry out a research program. ID as currently practiced is more an example of how to conduct a publicity campaign. This misunderstanding of scientific replicability is widely shared. Replicability doesn't refer to reenacting ancient events. That's patently silly. What replicability means is that anyone with the appropriate understanding, expertise and equipment can repeat the same experiments.In other words, the Big Bang is not an experiment, and so it is not something that needs replication. What requires replication is the experiments by which the Big Bang was deduced and later detected. Anyone with the proper knowledge and equipment can look out into space and see that distant galaxies are all receding from our own at a velocity proportional to their distance, and from which we first came to realize that if the universe is expanding, then a long time ago it must have been much smaller than it is today, ultimately a mere point in space that "exploded" (extremely rapid expansion is more accurate) as the Big Bang. Anyone with the proper knowledge and equipment can measure the cosmic background radiation that is the remnants of the Big Bang, and from which we confirmed that this Big Bang event that we inferred from the recession of galaxies was something that actually took place. Complete detail isn't a requirement of science. It couldn't possibly be a requirement of science, because it simply isn't possible to know everything in complete detail. The goal of science is to know more than yesterday while realizing that it is less than it will be tomorrow, and to do this through the scientific method.So it isn't that ID doesn't describe a natural process in detail, it's that it doesn't describe any natural process at all. In fact, IDists such as William Dembski argue strenuously that ID cannot know anything about the processes by which the designer accomplished his goals, or even anything at all about the nature of designer. Right there IDists define themselves as not doing science.Notice that IDists are not saying that the processes of the designer and the nature of the designer are more properly the realm of some other field, which would be fine. Biology does the same when it places the origin of life (abiogenesis) in a separate field from evolution. What the IDists are doing that is so wrong scientifically is ruling a priori what can be scientifically investigated and what cannot. Science rules out nothing that is observable and/or detectable in the real world, and so when ID starts doing this they reveal themselves to quite clearly not be doing science.--Percy