DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Paleophyte]

OK, you have no anatomy even vaguely resembling what you need to produce or maintain entangled particles. It's like saying you have a skeleton made of neutronium. Prove it? OK, you have neither the ability to produce nor maintain neutronium.
You're the one claiming that Orch-OR is even a hypothesis. You show how the necessary entangled particles could be produced or maintained.

Orch-Or is scientific theory that has been partially proven and corroborated whether any of you atheists like it or not. This may help you understand, since you obviously don't.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4513001188

Theories aren't proven. Not even partially.

I read your link twice already. As I said before, it's just a review by Penrose and Hamerhoff rehashing old ideas. Find me a paper that shows how entangled particles are created and maintained in microtubules. Without that you have no receiver.

You also need to provide cited sources to back up your argument.

OK.

Non-Gaussian Low-Frequency Noise as a Source of Qubit Decoherence

Pairwise Decoherence in Coupled Spin Qubit Networks

Majorana qubit decoherence by quasiparticle poisoning

I'll see your unfounded opinion and raise you the entire field of cognitive neuroscience. Your brain is a computer. We build computers in our image.

Everena: That is a total load of crap. Computers cannot do anything even remotely close to what we can do. They do not have consciousness or emotions or a will to live and survive or a love life, etc etc etc etc etc. You are just wrong.

Computers can't do some of the things that we do. Yet. Other things they do much better. This is largely because they are designed rather than being evolved.

And you have no idea how amusing your argument is that your brain has no computational capacity. What do you think 100 Billion neurons are doing up there?

Untrue. Evolution and emergent behaviours can account for the human brain without ever having to invoke deities.

Everena: False. Evolution is a process not a first cause.

You say that like processes don't cause anything. Processes are just long causal chains.