Friday, 17 January 2025

Smallest particles have the answers to the biggest questions?

Thursday, 16 January 2025

Brown Driver Briggs on qanah at Proverbs ch.8:22

of God as originating, creating, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6 (Israel), Psalm 139:13 (כִּלְֹיתָ֑י); Proverbs 8:22 ( חכמה q. v.).

Thayer's on prototokos at colossians ch.1:15.

tropically Christ is called πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (partitive genitive (see below), as in τά πρωτότοκα τῶν προβάτων, Genesis 4:4; τῶν βοῶν, Deuteronomy 12:17; τῶν υἱῶν σου, Exodus 22:29), who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things

Dia when used of the Logos according to Thayer's

Among instances where thayer's lexicon considers dia to denote instrumentality by an authority

Winer's Grammar, 379 (355))) ἐγένετο or ἐκτίσθη: John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6 (where he is expressly distinguished from the first cause: ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Winer's Grammar, 419 (391))); Colossians 1:16 (Winer's Grammar, the passage cited), cf. Hebrews 1:2 (Philo de cherub. § 35). The instrumental cause and the principal are distinguished in 1"

Against litigious XII

Litigious: First, regarding prototokos in Colossians 1:15, your assertion that it "inherently indicates membership in the implicit or explicit set of which one is prototokos" is an oversimplification that ignores the broader semantic range of the term. While prototokos can sometimes refer to birth order, it is often used metaphorically in Scripture to denote preeminence or rank. For instance, in Psalm 89:27, God refers to David as "My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." David was not the first king in history, nor even the first in his family, yet he is called prototokos to signify his supreme status.

You really need to stop being such a robot nothing you mentioned is in any way relevant to my argument it's like copying and pasting or letting A I write your contributions,you can't persuade anyone with that kind of approach there is simply no place including your examples where the prototokos is outside the implied group whether he is the first or foremost is of no co sequence to my argument the more you ignore my actual argument the less persuasive you sound.

Litigious:Similarly, Colossians 1:15 uses prototokos to highlight Christ’s supremacy over all creation, not to place Him within the category of created beings. This interpretation aligns with the immediate context, where verses 16-17 explicitly describe Christ as the Creator of "all things," both visible and invisible. If Christ created "all things," it is logically incoherent to argue that He Himself is part of what He created. Your appeal to the partitive genitive argument fails to address this context adequately. While some uses of prototokos involve a partitive genitive, the genitive in Colossians 1:15 can just as easily be understood as one of relationship or subordination (e.g., "firstborn over all creation," as many translations render it).

Again not one example and the lexicon make it plain that this us definitely a partitive genitive. He is the one "dia" whom JEHOVAH Made all things the words dia and en are NEVER used of JEHOVAH'S Role in the creation he is the source of the power and wisdom in the creation all who JEHOVAH act through are subordinate to him

The surrounding context supports the relational or preeminent sense, particularly because Paul immediately clarifies that all things were created through Christ and for Him, emphasizing His role as the Creator and the one for whom creation exists. Second, your interpretation of dia as indicating mere instrumentality misrepresents the Greek preposition's usage in the New Testament. While dia can signify instrumentality, it often denotes agency, particularly when paired with an active subject like Christ in passages about creation. For instance, John 1:3 states that "all things were made through (dia) Him, and without Him was not anything made that was

Your circular logic proves nothing we know that JEHOVAH is the source 1corinthians ch.8:6 and that His son is the means we have no precedent for JEHOVAH Acting through an equal not even one time to merely assert an exception circular logic. The word all is routinely used in scripture with sensible exceptions. See Genesis 3:20

The text does not imply Christ is merely a tool or intermediary; rather, it ascribes to Him an active, causative role in creation. Furthermore, Hebrews 1:2 reinforces this idea, stating that God "made the universe through (dia) the Son." The consistent use of dia in these contexts underscores Christ's active agency in creation, not a passive, subordinate role. Your claim that there is no biblical precedent for describing creation as occurring dia Jehovah is irrelevant, as the New Testament reveals Christ’s divine agency as fully consistent with His being one with the Father.

More argument by assertion I already told you you need to get a specific quote.

Your assertion that the fact that no one is ever shown to create dia JEHOVAH is irrelevant seems rather circular that would be the only sure way to prove that JEHOVAH is on the same plain as his created son . All whom JEHOVAH Acts through are his subordinates. We are one with christ does that mean we are equal to him

Third, your argument about Hebrews 1:6 and Jesus' exaltation misunderstands the distinction between Christ’s divine nature and His incarnate role. The references to Christ being "made lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:9) and later exalted reflect His voluntary humility and submission in the incarnation, not a change in His divine essence. Philippians 2:6-11 elucidates this point: Christ, "being in the form of God," did not cling to His equality with God but "emptied Himself" to take on human nature. His exaltation after the resurrection signifies the glorification of His humanity, not a promotion in His divine nature, which is unchangeable and eternal. Your argument conflates Christ's incarnate role with His divine essence, leading to a misunderstanding of the text

I understand that human and superhuman are mutually exclusive terms. God and man are mutually exclusive categories this is why we reject your churches assertions.

Against litigious X

Litigious:The claim that no one in heaven, including Jesus, has a physical form misinterprets 1 Corinthians 15:50. The phrase "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" does not mean that physical bodies are excluded from heaven. Rather, it signifies that corruptible, mortal bodies cannot inherit the imperishable kingdom. As Paul explains in the surrounding verses, believers’ bodies will be transformed into glorified, immortal BODIES (1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 53). This transformation does not entail abandoning physicality but perfecting it, as demonstrated by Christ's resurrected body.

Myself:Again it means what it says your church has no recognized authority here the Bible has all the authority unless you can find some scripture that says otherwise we go with what the verse clearly states no physical forms in heaven, christ is no longer human.

See galatians ch.1:1

Litigious:The argument that Christ’s glorified body negates His physicality misunderstands the nature of glorification. A glorified body is still a body, but it is no longer subject to decay, suffering, or death. Jesus' ability to appear and disappear after His resurrection (e.g., Luke 24:31, John 20:19) reflects the properties of a glorified body, not a denial of its physical reality. These accounts affirm that Christ retained His humanity in a perfected state, consistent with His ongoing role as the risen Lord.

Myself:We reject your church's authority sola scriptura,find a verse that says that don't simply assert anything or we would have no choice but to reject it where are your scriptures. Galatians ch.1:1 luke 24:31 shows him disappearing into thin air that certainly does not seem very human to me. And in broad daylight no one recognized him.clearly something similar Genesis ch.19 was happening.here galatians ch.1:1 makes it plain that he was no longer human.

Litigious:Finally, the claim that Christ is no longer human and that His resurrected appearances prove He became solely a "spirit being" lacks scriptural support. Paul consistently teaches that Jesus’ resurrection affirms both the continuity of His identity and the transformation of His body (Romans 6:9-10, Philippians 3:21). The notion that Jesus "became" a spirit contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture, which emphasizes the physical reality of His resurrection as the firstfruits of the redeemed (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).

Myself His becoming superhuman won't alter his identity any more than his becoming human altered it so your argument makes no sense.

Ps. Among instances where thayer's lexicon considers dia to denote instrumentality by an authority

Brown Driver Briggs on qanah at Proverbs ch.8:22

of God as originating, creating, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6 (Israel), Psalm 139:13 (כִּלְֹיתָ֑י); Proverbs 8:22 ( חכמה q. v.).

Against litigious ch.IX

Your argument regarding the term arche in Revelation 3:14 overlooks its semantic range. While arche can mean "beginning" in the sense of the first in a sequence, it also carries the meaning of "source" or "ruler." In the context of Revelation, arche emphasizes Christ's role as the origin and sovereign of creation. This interpretation aligns with Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, where Christ is identified as the "Alpha and Omega," titles that affirm his eternal and uncreated nature. Your claim that arche here implies Christ's creation is inconsistent with the broader context of Revelation and the New Testament.

If you insists on just spamming I going to have to block you I already dealt with this Revelation ch.1:8 has nothing to do with creation and arche is rendered as begining not source here so your argument makes no sense either engage with my arguments in a honest way or get lost.

Litigious:The argument that Christ cannot be Jehovah because Jehovah "is not a man" (Numbers 23:19) misunderstands the doctrine of the Incarnation. Trinitarian theology does not claim that the divine nature changes into human nature. Instead, the Incarnation teaches that the eternal Son took on human nature while remaining fully divine (John 1:14; Philippians 2:6-8). The Son’s humanity does not negate his deity but fulfills the redemptive purpose of God. Malachi 3:6 affirms God's immutability, which is fully consistent with the Incarnation, as it pertains to the divine nature, not the addition of a human nature.

Myself:God and man are mutually exclusive terms and you claim his becoming a man made him dependent when he wasn't before becoming a man so obviously the Incarnation changed him. Your reference to church law does not counter the Bible that is what you need to understand only the Bible can counter the Bible. Find a scripture that says JEHOVAH was only the most high God until the first century and I will look at it,but but the fact that your church simply pulls an idea out of greco-roman speculation is reason to dismiss it out of hand in these parts, so respect your audience.

Your interpretation of John 10:29 and Matthew 24:36 does not refute Christ's deity. John 10:29 emphasizes the Father's greatness in the context of divine protection and unity, not a denial of the Son's equality. In fact, John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") asserts their unity in essence. Regarding Matthew 24:36, Christ's statement about the Son not knowing the day or hour reflects his voluntary limitation in knowledge during his earthly ministry, consistent with the doctrine of the hypostatic union. This does not imply inferiority but demonstrates the Son's humility in fulfilling his mission.

The unincarnated spirit would not fall under the self-limiting fallacy JEHOVAH does not change no creation can limit JEHOVAH so your argument is unscriptural expression "the Father only" would exclude the unincarnated spirit . He already mentioned men and angels if only the human Son were meant there would be no need to mention him separately he us mentioned after the superhuman angels to imply that even in his superhuman state he would not know. And if he does know anything then he is not JEHOVAH

LITIGIOUS:Finally, your argument that “Jehovah” does not have a God (Revelation 3:12) fails to consider the relational dynamic within the Trinity. As the incarnate Son, Jesus refers to the Father as "my God" to express his role within the economy of salvation. This relational language does not diminish his deity but reflects his mission as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).

Myself JEHOVAH is the most high God therefore the Trinity is nonsense jesus is not JEHOVAH because he is not the most high God. Keep it simple.

Ps.Among instances where thayer's lexicon considers dia to denote instrumentality by an authority

Brown Driver Briggs on qanah at Proverbs ch.8:22

of God as originating, creating, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6 (Israel), Psalm 139:13 (כִּלְֹיתָ֑י); Proverbs 8:22 ( חכמה q. v.).

Against litigious VIII

Litigious: Luke 20:36 speaks of the resurrected believers being "equal to angels" and "sons of God" in the sense that they will share certain characteristics with angels, such as immortality and no longer being subject to marriage. However, this comparison does not imply that angels have "bodies". The emphasis is on their new state of existence—imperishable and eternal—not on the possession of a physical or spiritual body. Angels are described throughout Scripture as incorporeal beings who can assume physical forms temporarily for specific purposes (e.g., Genesis 18:1-8, Hebrews 1:14). These temporary appearances do not imply that angels inherently possess bodies, whether physical or spiritual. Their nature, as "ministering spirits" (Hebrews 1:14), is fundamentally distinct from that of human beings.

Myself:actually there isn't one single Scripture anywhere that refers to angels as incorporeal not one anywhere at all. And I thiught humans are already immortal so if humans are already immortal spirits then when they lose their bodies they become like your supposedly body less angels not when they are resurrected and get superphysical bodies unless the super physical bodies are what is making them like angels.

Litigious1 John 3:2 emphasizes that believers do not yet know the full nature of their future glorified state but affirms that they will be "like Him" (Christ) when they see Him "as He is." This does not imply that believers will have the same nature as God. Rather, it speaks to the believers’ ultimate transformation and participation in the divine life, which includes holiness, immortality, and perfect union with God. It is essential to recognize that while Christ's glorified body is physical (as demonstrated in Luke 24:39, John 20:27), it is not the same as the incorporeal nature of God. The verse points to believers being conformed to Christ's likeness (Romans 8:29), not to the idea of God or angels having "bodies."

I thought the christ is the true God so saying that christ has physical body is the same as saying that God has physical body just like saying that Mary is the mother of christ is the same as saying that Mary is the mother of God. So God has a physical body and is a man according to your church.

Romans ch.1:23 NIV"and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

We know that heavenly creatures can temporarily take on human forms see Genesis ch.19 so no the scriptures you cited doesn't prove that Jesus reclaimed his human life thus cancelling the sin offering. Again there isn't one single Scripture anywhere that uses the expression incorporeal to refer to angels not one. Sola scriptura.

Litigious:The suggestion that God has a body is incompatible with biblical teaching about His nature. Scripture consistently portrays God as spirit (John 4:24) and as infinite, invisible, and uncontainable (1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Kings 8:27). God does not have a body in the sense that humans or even resurrected believers do. Anthropomorphic language in Scripture—describing God's "hand," "face," or "eyes"—is metaphorical, used to help finite humans understand aspects of God's actions or character. For example, when the Bible speaks of God's "hand" (Isaiah 41:10), it refers to His power, not a literal physical appendage.

Again spirit has nothing to do with shape form or lack their of but with being beyond our senses a spirit would be any invisible or non tactile current at Genesis 3:8 the word ruach us used to refer to the breezes that characterize the evening period of the day.

Jesus said his God has a morphe a shape and a voice that he had seen and heard. This morphe would be unlike anything in creation so we should not be thinking of a human form which is specifically created for life in the physical world and being composed of physical matter with it's inherent limits it would beyond anything we could even think up.

Litigious;The claim that angels "have bodies" because they appear in human form to the patriarchs (e.g., Genesis 18) misunderstands the nature of these appearances. Angels, as spiritual beings, can assume temporary physical forms to fulfill their missions, but this does not mean they inherently possess bodies. Their essence is spiritual, as affirmed in Hebrews 1:14, and their ability to manifest physically is a divine accommodation for interaction with the material world. This temporary manifestation is not equivalent to possessing a permanent body, whether physical or spiritual.

Myself:I think you are mixing up your arguments I would never make such an argument: Jesus ability to take on human shapes when appearing to his disciples after his resurrection does not prove that he reclaimed his human nature I think that is the point that I would use re:angelic appearances since his resurrection our Lord is no longer human and his taking on fully clothed tangible bodies does not prove otherwise.

Galatians ch.1:1 NIV"Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"

Litigious:Furthermore, the suggestion that resurrected believers will have bodies "like God's own body" misconstrues the biblical witness. God’s nature is fundamentally different from all creation, including human beings and angels. The resurrection body of believers will be glorified and imperishable (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), like Christ's glorified body (Philippians 3:21), but this does not imply that God has a body. The glorified body is a transformation of the earthly body, suited for eternal life in the new creation, but it remains distinct from God’s incorporeal and infinite nature.

Myself:I thought Christ was God and therefore God is the Son of Mary with physical body.

Having an outward resemblance to God Does not imply equality with JEHOVAH any more than the fact that angels can take on an outward appearance to men means that they are of the same nature as men. No one in heaven has a physical form or will ever have a physical form that definitely includes Jesus.

See 1Corinthians ch.15:50

Ps.Among instances where thayer's lexicon considers dia to denote instrumentality by an authority

Brown Driver Briggs on qanah at Proverbs ch.8:22

of God as originating, creating, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6 (Israel), Psalm 139:13 (כִּלְֹיתָ֑י); Proverbs 8:22 ( חכמה q. v.).

Against litigious VII

Litigious:The assertion that qanah in Proverbs 8:22 must mean "created" misunderstands the broader semantic range of the Hebrew term. While qanah can mean "create," it also frequently means "possess" or "acquire," particularly in contexts emphasizing ownership or divine action. The context of Proverbs 8:22 speaks of Wisdom being with God "from the beginning" (reshit), which aligns better with "possess" or "acquire" in a way that emphasizes Wisdom's eternal and integral relationship with God. This interpretation is consistent with the broader biblical portrayal of divine Wisdom as eternal (e.g., Job 28:20-28) and inseparable from God.

Myself:No the Bible never uses beginning to mean eternity thus clearly we are speaking of a creation JEHOVAH'S Wisdom was not acquired

Litigious:The LXX rendering of qanah as ektise ("created") in Proverbs 8:22 does not necessarily imply a temporal act of creation in the sense of bringing something into existence from nothing. The term ektise in Hellenistic Greek can also mean "established" or "ordained," reflecting the ordering of divine Wisdom in God's plan. This reflects an interpretive choice of the translators but does not overturn the Hebrew understanding of Wisdom as an eternal attribute of God. Furthermore, the LXX was influenced by Jewish philosophical and theological frameworks, such as those of Philo, which often depicted Wisdom in personified and functional terms, not as a separate created entity.

Myself: that is why Wisdom here must be an expression of wisdom and not eternal attribute of JEHOVAH. Creation always happens in time in the Bible we reject greco-roman speculation. The ancient Hebrews would likewise have rejected the idea of a multipersonal God.

Litigious:Your citation of various translations that use "created" in Proverbs 8:22 reflects interpretive decisions, not necessarily a definitive rendering of the Hebrew text. Many of these translations prioritize readability over precise theological nuance. The choice of "created" in some Catholic translations reflects an attempt to reconcile the text with the broader narrative of God’s creative work, not an actual endorsement of the idea that Wisdom is a created being. Even within these translations, the eternal and divine nature of Wisdom as an attribute of God remains central.:

Creation is a legitimate rendering in the BIBLE all creation happens within time we and the ancient Hebrews reject creation outside of time.JEHOVAH'S quality of Wisdom is uncreated the idea of an expression of wisdom makes much more sense .

Litigious:The reference to reshit ("beginning") does not necessarily imply a temporal starting point. In Proverbs 8:22, reshit is better understood as indicating primacy or preeminence rather than a chronological beginning. This is supported by the use of reshit in other contexts, such as Genesis 1:1, where it refers to the foundational moment of creation, not to a created entity itself. Similarly, the use of archē in the Greek translation reinforces the idea of preeminence and priorinot a point of creation.

Myself:there is NO Scriptural precedent at all for a creation outside of time all creations are within time. All beginnings refer to time.

Sola scriptura. Genesis proves my point the beginning of his way would not refer to an abstraction. Abstract Wisdom is not the beginning of anything.expressed Wisdom is the beginning of JEHOVAH'S Way.

Ps. Among instances where thayer's lexicon considers dia to denote instrumentality by an authority

Brown Driver Briggs on qanah at Proverbs ch.8:22

of God as originating, creating, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6 (Israel), Psalm 139:13 (כִּלְֹיתָ֑י); Proverbs 8:22 ( חכמה q. v.).

Against litigious VI

Litigous:The claim that the Father alone is the source of creation (ex hou, "from whom," as in 1 Corinthians 8:6) does not diminish the Son’s divinity or creative role.

Myself the Father is the only God EX whom all things are there us no other God EX whom all things are the God EX whom all things are is the only God that is entitled to latreo.

1corinthians ch.8:6NKJV"yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him;.. "

Obviously the Father is a nontriune God,if there also a triune God who is also entitled to latreo then we have a case of polytheism only the God EX whom are all things is entitled to latreo.

If the Son is not the source of the power and wisdom in the creation the obviously he is inferior only the one who is the source of the power and wisdom in the creation would be supreme, just as only the one who is the source of the law would be the supreme

John ch.1:17NKJV"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. "

By your logic Moses must be equal to JEHOVAH

The ones through whom JEHOVAH acts are never equal to him

Litigious:In Trinitarian theology, the Father is the source (arche), but the Son is the agent through whom creation is accomplished. This cooperative activity reflects the unity and equality within the Godhead.

Myself:We don't believe in "theology" we believe in scripture all who JEHOVAH act through ate subordinate to him without exception

Hebrews ch.1:1 NIV"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, "

By your logic the prophets are part of the Godhead.

Note the distinction is not between the Father and his instrument but the GOD and his instrumentality

Litigious:To assert that Christ’s creative role is secondary misunderstands the relational distinction within the Trinity. The Son’s dependence on the Father, as expressed in passages like John 5:19, reflects his incarnational mission and voluntary submission, not his inferiority in essence or nature.

Myself;the distinction is between the God and his instrument not the Father and his instrument,the Father is a nontriune God we cross the line into polytheism if we assert that there is also a triune God who is entitled to latreo.

He is not JEHOVAH if he can become a creature because bible repeatedly assures is that JEHOVAH is not a man see numbers ch.23;19 all statements about JEHOVAH'S Nature are unchangeable facts see malachi ch.3:6 that is why we can put total faith in him.

He mentions raising the dead this after his resurrection when he is no longer man see galatians ch.1:1

Litigious:Moreover, the identification of Christ as the arche ("beginning") in Revelation 3:14 does not support the claim that he is a created being. The term arche has a range of meanings, including "origin," "source," and "ruler." In the context of Revelation and the broader New Testament, it is best understood as signifying Christ’s role as the source and ruler of creation,

Myself: We know that THE God who is distinguished from in the statement and who we agree he is not Numerically identical to is the ultimate source of the creation and that when John wanted to depict him as ruler over the princes of the world he used archon not arche see Revelation ch.1:5.

So know the king James is spot on here the God tou theou is the source and ruler and his son is the starting point of his creation.

Litigious:not as its first product. This interpretation is consistent with Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, where the same term is used for God, who is unquestionably uncreated. Christ shares in this divine identity, as evidenced by his titles "Alpha and Omega" and "First and Last."

Myself: unfortunately for you creation is not mentioned anywhere in this verse thus mist likely has to do with Godhood the God and Father of jesus being declared the only God entitled to latreo

Christ title of first and last has to do with his resurrection,he is the only one who us resurrected without s creature as an instrument every other resurrected one us through Him.

Revelation ch.1:17,18NUV"When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

JEHOVAH being the unchangeably immortal God cannot die and thus cannot be resurrected. And again nothing to do with creation.

Litigious:Finally, the theological implication that Christ must be subordinate because "the Son can do nothing by himself" (John 5:19) ignores the context of Christ’s earthly ministry and the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

We reject your argument by assertion the scriptures are clear JEHOVAH us not a man nor a Son of Man malachi ch.3:6 let's us know that this is a permanent state of affairs that is the only way it can serve as a guarantee. The fact that he can become lower than the angels proves conclusively that he is not JEHOVAH.

Litigious;In his incarnation, the Son operates in full dependence on the Father to fulfill his redemptive mission. This voluntary dependence does not negate his equality with the Father, as affirmed in John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and Philippians 2:6 ("though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped").

Myself;John ch.10:29 jesus makes it plain that his God and Father is greater than all others not most others, this would include the unincarnated spirit,so your incarnation fudge does not work here. At Matthew ch.24:36 he clearly states that only his God and father knows the day or hour this would also exclude the unincarnated spirit,if this knowledge only included Christ in his below the angels state he would not have mentioned the Son after mentioning men,which would include the human christ and angels who were then above the human christ. No, clearly the superhuman christ is included, the unincarnated spirit is not even mentioned.

After his restoration to the superhuman Glory his father continues to be his GOD

Ephesians ch.1:17NIV"I keep asking that the GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit f of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18I"

Revelation ch.3:12NIV"The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my GOD. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my GOD and the name of the city of my GOD, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my GOD; and I will also write on them my new name."

JEHOVAH is the MOST HIGH and thus worships NO ONE.

Ps.Among instances where thayer's lexicon considers dia to denote instrumentality by an authority

Brown Driver Briggs on qanah at Proverbs ch.8:22

of God as originating, creating, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6 (Israel), Psalm 139:13 (כִּלְֹיתָ֑י); Proverbs 8:22 ( חכמה q. v.).

On getting design detection down to a science.

ID is a science driver?

Wednesday, 15 January 2025

Yet more on the real world's anti Darwinian bias

Yet another clash of Titans.

Tuesday, 14 January 2025

GROK on the history of chess.

Chess is a game with a rich and complex history that spans over a millennium. Here's an overview of its development:

Origins:

Early Beginnings (6th Century AD): The origins of chess are often traced back to the 6th century in India, where it was known as "Chaturanga." This game was designed to model military strategy and included four branches of the military: infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariots, which are represented by pawns, knights, bishops, and rooks respectively in modern chess.

Spread to Persia: By the 7th century, the game had spread to Persia, where it was called "Shatranj." The Persians adapted the game, and it began to take on forms closer to what we recognize today, although with different rules and piece movements.

Medieval Evolution:

Arab World: From Persia, chess spread across the Islamic world. Arab scholars and players contributed significantly to the theory and strategy of the game. The term "checkmate" comes from the Persian "shah mat," meaning "the king is dead."

Europe: By the 10th century, chess had reached Europe through Islamic Spain and the Byzantine Empire. Here, the game underwent further transformations. The pieces were often given new names (e.g., "bishop" from "elephant") and their movements were clarified or changed over time.

Modern Chess:

Renaissance Changes: By the 15th century, especially in Spain and Italy, the modern rules of chess started to crystallize. The queen and bishop became more powerful, leading to a faster, more dynamic game. This period is often seen as the birth of modern chess.

Standardization: In 1561, the Spaniard Ruy López de Segura published "Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del Axedrez," which discussed chess openings and is considered one of the first comprehensive treatises on chess strategy.

19th Century: Chess clubs, tournaments, and the first official world championships began in this era, with Wilhelm Steinitz becoming the first official World Chess Champion in 1886.

20th Century and Beyond: Chess theory, strategy, and endgame studies flourished. The advent of computing introduced computer chess, leading to significant advancements in chess algorithms and the eventual defeat of the reigning world champion Garry Kasparov by IBM's Deep Blue in 1997.

Cultural Impact:

Literature and Art: Chess has influenced numerous works of art, literature, and film, reflecting its deep integration into human culture as a metaphor for life, strategy, and intellectual battle.

Global Spread: Today, chess is played worldwide, with international federations like FIDE (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) organizing global competitions and standardizing rules.

Chess's history is not just about the evolution of a game but also about cultural exchange, intellectual development, and the ongoing human fascination with strategy and competition.

The kingdom of the gene has fallen?

Monday, 13 January 2025

Continuing to just say no to engineerless engineering.

Even the darkness is finetuned?

Dark Matter and Intelligent Design: A Prediction

Eric Hedin

From the point of view of intelligent design, it is believed that many features of this universe are designed for the benefit of life. The fine-tuning of physical parameters, such as the expansion rate of the universe and the strengths of the fundamental forces, are well-known examples that fall within exclusively narrow ranges allowing biological life to exist.

Predictions of design in physics and biology have been made and substantiated, even in cases when the materialistic worldview suggested otherwise. The value of “junk DNA” has powerfully vindicated the view of design in biology, and the historical discovery of the nuclear resonance energy levels of carbon and oxygen confirmed an earlier anthropic prediction from astronomy.

Dark Matter

Following this precedent, I would like to suggest the possibility that dark matter, one of the mysterious components of the cosmos, will turn out to serve more than one design purpose. But first, let’s look at some of the remarkable features of dark matter, already discovered by observations in astronomy and cosmology.

An enormous reservoir of dark matter particles resides in our universe as a “leftover” from the beginning of the cosmos, as described by the big bang model. Astronomers estimate that approximately five times more dark matter exists in our universe than what we know as ordinary matter. An intriguing description of the presence of dark matter is given by astrophysicists Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes:1

It is important to remember that dark matter isn’t something weird “out there”, but permeates the Solar System, and even the room in which you are sitting….

The presence of dark matter is far from irrelevant to our existence. Lewis and Barnes point out that the cumulative gravitational attraction of dark matter in the Milky Way is needed to keep our solar system orbiting around the galactic center rather than flying off into intergalactic space!

An Anthropic Purpose

Scientists have already discovered that dark matter serves an anthropic purpose in developing the habitability of the universe. Its unique property of interacting gravitationally but not electromagnetically allowed dark matter in the early universe to more easily clump together than normal matter could. Once these galactic-scale clumps of dark matter formed, they gravitationally attracted normal matter into the same regions of space, aiding in the formation of galaxies, and thereby stars, and planets. As far as our physics and observations tells us, without a finely tuned amount of dark matter in the universe, no habitable planets would ever come to exist.2

Dark matter, so named because it does not emit, reflect, or absorb light, is estimated to make up 85% of the mass in the universe but has never been directly detected, though it has left its fingerprints on multiple astronomical observations. We wouldn’t exist without this mysterious yet fundamental piece of the universe; dark matter’s mass contributes to the gravitational attraction that helps galaxies form and stay together.

If dark matter particles exist in all the space around us, why are they so elusive? Physicists have so far not succeeded in detecting a single particle of dark matter. The difficulty may lie in the inherently exotic nature of the particles, possibly existing merely as higher-dimensional oscillations, whimsically referred to by physicists as “WIMPS” — weakly interacting massive particles.

Recent results from the world’s most sensitive dark matter detector, operating nearly a mile underground (to provide shielding from the “noise” of cosmic rays), have lowered the range of the possible effective mass of WIMPS to about ten times the mass of a proton.

The new result is nearly five times better than the previous world’s best published result and finds no evidence of WIMPs above a mass of 9 GeV/c2.

The Interesting Part

Once in the ground state, the formerly “dark” particle of matter would exist as a normal particle of matter in our universe. But here is the interesting part — as the particle transitions to the next-lower excitation level, it would emit a quantum of energy equivalent to its rest-mass energy. If, for example, the dark matter particle de-excited from the second excited state down to the ground state, it would emit two photons of energy (in the gamma-wave region of the electromagnetic spectrum), each with an energy equivalent to the rest-mass energy of the particle.

To acquire energy from such a dark matter particle, it must undergo de-excitation to its ground state. Borrowing from the concept of laser technology, which uses radiation tuned to the energy difference between the excited state and a lower state to “stimulate” the emission of a photon of energy, a dark matter particle could perhaps be de-excited by appropriately tuned radiation.

Theory suggests that the energy of the radiation should be matched to the rest mass energy of the corresponding normal particle. For a proton, this would be 938 MeV, corresponding to radiation in the gamma-ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

A Futuristic Energy Source

Sometimes, science fiction authors pave the way for scientific advances by imagining technology far in advance of the present-day state-of-affairs. A couple of authors that I’m familiar with have imagined a futuristic energy source that could overlap with the idea for dark matter energy I’ve proposed in this article.

One of these is Michael Guillen, PhD, author of several books highlighting intelligent design. In a fictional work he wrote, The Null Prophecy, he envisions an energy source for new technology that made me ponder the possibility of energy from extra-dimensional particles. The other reference is from classic science fiction author, Dr. E. E. Smith, who leaves out all the details and in typical swash-buckling sci-fi style describes powering spaceships with “cosmic-energy receptors and converters.”

Whether dark matter will turn out to manifest additional aspects of design for the benefit of humans remains to be seen. But if past trends in the discovery of fine-tuning, foresight, and purpose continue, I think it’s a sure bet.

Notes

Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, “A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos,” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 130.

Ibid, pp. 148-152.

E. R. Hedin, “Extra-dimensional confinement of quantum particles,” Physics Essays, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 177-190, June, 2012. V.K. Oikonomou, J.D. Vergados, Ch.C. Moustakidis, “Direct detection of dark matter rates for various wimps,” Nuclear Physics B, 773, Issues 1–2, (2007), pp. 19-42.

A titan holds court

Sunday, 12 January 2025

Walt disney on scientism.

On the magic kingdom and Darwin

Saturday, 11 January 2025

There is still no free lunch re: information.

The Displacement Fallacy: Evolution’s Shell Game

William A Dembski

Author’s note: Conservation of information is a big result of the intelligent design literature, even if to date it hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves. It quantifies the amount of information needed to increase the probability of finding a needle in a haystack so that the needle can actually be found. The upshot of conservation of information is that the information needed to find a needle in a haystack in turn requires finding another needle in a haystack, implying there is no free lunch in search. I just wrote up a full account of conservation of information for the journal BIO-Complexity in a paper titled “The Law of Conservation of Information: Natural Processes Only Redistribute Existing Information.” What follows is a section from that paper on the displacement fallacy. This section is accessible and helps clarify the intuitions underlying conservation of information.

The discovery of conservation of information didn’t start with proving a mathematical theorem. Rather, its discovery came from repeatedly noticing how efforts to account for the success of searches whose odds of success were seemingly hopeless always smuggled in information that wasn’t properly accounted for. One hole was filled, but only by digging another, and so a new hole now in turn needed to be explained. This failure of explanation became especially evident in the evolutionary literature. Darwinian approaches to biological evolution and evolutionary computing sought to explain the origin of information through some process that directly used or else mimicked natural selection. Yet rather than admit a fundamental gap in explanation, this literature simply invoked selection as a backstop to explain the origin of information, the backstop itself being exempt from further explanation.

The move to explain the origin of information by invoking some separate unexplained source of information, typically via a selection process, was so common in the evolutionary literature that it deserved its own name: displacement.1 Displacement became the tool of choice among evolutionary critics of intelligent design as they tried to invalidate the logic of the design inference, which inferred design for events both specified and improbable. Critics claimed that once natural selection came into play, it acted as a probability amplifier that removed any seeming improbability that might otherwise have made for a valid design inference. Accordingly, critics argued that seeming products of design could be explained away through evolutionary processes requiring no design.

Improbable Products

But this attempt to invalidate the design inference was too easy. Products can be designed, but also processes that build products can be designed (compare a Tesla automobile with a Tesla factory that builds Tesla automobiles — both are designed). The design inference makes sense of improbable products. Conservation of information, through the search for a search, makes sense of improbable processes that output probable products. Making sense of displacement was a crucial step in developing a precise mathematical treatment of conservation of information.

Whereas conservation of information was a mathematically confirmed theoretical finding, displacement was an inductively confirmed empirical finding. Over and over information supposedly created from scratch was surreptitiously introduced under the pretense that the information was already adequately explained when in fact it was merely presupposed. In effect, displacement became a special case of the fallacy of begging the question, obscuring rather than illuminating evolutionary processes.

One of the more brazen examples of displacement that I personally encountered occurred in a 2001 interview with Darwinist Eugenie Scott on Peter Robinson’s program Uncommon Knowledge. Scott and I were discussing evolution and intelligent design when Robinson raised the trope about a monkey, given enough time, producing the works of Shakespeare by randomly typing at a typewriter. Scott responded by saying that contrary to this example, where the monkey’s typing merely produces random variation, natural selection is like a technician who stands behind the monkey and whites out every mistake the monkey makes in typing Shakespeare.3 But where exactly do you find a technician who knows enough about the works of Shakespeare to white out mistakes in the typing of Shakespeare? What are the qualifications of this technician? How does the technician know what to erase? Scott never said. That’s displacement: The monkey’s success at typing Shakespeare is explained, but at the cost of leaving the technician who corrects the monkey’s typing unexplained.

About That Weasel

In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins claims to show how natural selection can create information by appealing to his well-known METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL computer simulation.4 Pure random sampling of the 28 letters and spaces in this target phrase would have a probability of only 1 in 27^28, or roughly 1 in 10^40, of achieving it. In evolving METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, Dawkins’s simulation was able to overcome this improbability by carefully choosing a fitness landscape to assign higher fitness to character sequences that have more corresponding letters in common with the target phrase.

Essentially, in place of pure randomness, Dawkins substituted a hill-climbing algorithm with exactly one peak and with a clear way to improve fitness at any place away from the peak (smooth and increasing gradients all the way!).5 But where did this fitness landscape come from? Such a fitness landscape exists for any possible target phrase whatsoever, and not just for METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Dawkins explains the evolution of METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL in terms of a fitness landscape that with high probability allows for the evolution to this target phrase. Yet he leaves the fitness landscape itself unexplained.6 In so doing, he commits a displacement fallacy.7

Displacement is also evident in the work of Dawkins as he shifts from computer simulations to biological evolution. Indeed, his entire book Climbing Mount Improbable can be viewed as an exercise in displacement as applied to biology.8 In that book, Dawkins compares the emergence of biological complexity to climbing a mountain. He calls it Mount Improbable because if you had to get all the way to the top in one fell swoop (that is, achieve a massive increase in biological complexity all at once), it would be highly improbable. But does Mount Improbable have to be scaled in one leap? Darwinism purports to show how Mount Improbable can be scaled in small incremental steps. Thus, according to Dawkins, Mount Improbable always has a gradual serpentine path leading to the top that can be traversed in baby-steps.

But where is the verification for this claim? It could be that Mount Improbable is sheer on all sides and getting to the top via baby-steps is effectively impossible. Consequently, it is not enough to presuppose that a fitness-increasing sequence of baby steps always connects biological systems. Such a connection must be demonstrated, and to date it has not, as Michael Behe’s work on irreducible complexity shows.9 But even if such a connection could be demonstrated, what would this say about the conditions for the formation of Mount Improbable in the first place?

Mountains, after all, do not magically materialize — they have to be formed by some process of mountain formation. Of all the different ways Mount Improbable might have emerged, how many are sheer so that no gradual path to the summit exists? And how many do allow a gradual path to the summit? A Mount Improbable with gradual paths to the top may itself be improbable. Dawkins simply assumes that Mount Improbable must be such as to facilitate Darwinian evolution. But in so doing, he commits a displacement fallacy, presupposing what must be explained and justified, and thus illicitly turning a problem into its own solution.10

Examples of Displacement

In the evolutionary computing literature, examples of displacement more sophisticated than Dawkins’ WEASEL can readily be found. But the same question-begging displacement fallacy underlies all these examples. The most widely publicized instance of displacement in the evolutionary computing literature appeared in Nature back in 2003. Richard Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert Pennock, and Christoph Adami had developed a computer simulation called Avida.11 They claimed that this simulation was able to create complex Boolean operators without any special input or knowledge. One of the co-authors, Pennock, then went further to claim that Avida decisively refuted Michael Behe’s work on irreducible complexity.12 And given that irreducible complexity is a linchpin of intelligent design, Pennock in effect claimed that Avida had also refuted intelligent design.

But in fact, as Winston Ewert and George Montañez showed by tracking the information flow through Avida, the amount of information outputted through newly formed complex Boolean operators never exceeded the amount of information inputted. In fact, Avida was jury-rigged to produce the very complexity it was claiming to produce for free: Avida rewarded ever-increasing complexity simply for complexity’s sake and not for independent functional reasons. Other examples like Thomas Schneider’s ev, Thomas Ray’s Tierra, and David Thomas’s Steiner tree search algorithm all followed the same pattern.13 Ewert and Montañez were able to show precisely where the information supposedly created from scratch in these algorithms had in fact been embedded from the outset.14 Displacement, as their research showed, is pervasive in this literature.

The empirical work of showing displacement for these computer simulations set the stage for the theoretical work on conservation of information. These simulations, and their consistent failure to explain the origin of information, prompted an investigation into the precise numerical relation between information inputted and information outputted. Showing displacement started out as a case-by-case effort to uncover where precisely information had been smuggled into a computer simulation. Once the mathematics of conservation of information was developed, however, the need to find exactly where the information was smuggled in was no longer so important, theory stepping in where observation fell short.

The Pigeonhole Principle

Theory guaranteed that the information was smuggled in even if the evolutionary simulations became so byzantine that it was hard to follow their precise information flow. By analogy, if you have a hundred and one letters that must go into a hundred mailboxes, the pigeonhole principle of mathematics guarantees that one of the mailboxes must have more than one letter.15 Checking this empirically could be arduous if not practically impossible because of all the many possible ways that these letters could fill the mailboxes. Theory in this case comes to the rescue, guaranteeing what observation alone cannot.

Displacement is a shell game. In a shell game, an operator places a small object, like a pea, under one of three cups and then rapidly shuffles the cups to confuse observers about the object’s location. Participants are invited to guess which cup hides the pea, but the game often relies on sleight of hand and misdirection to increase the likelihood that participants guess incorrectly. So long as the game is played fairly, the pea is under one cup and remains under one cup. It cannot magically materialize or dematerialize. The game can become more sophisticated by increasing the number of cups and by the operator moving the cups with greater speed and agility. But by carefully tracking the operator, it is always possible to determine where the pea started out and where it ended up. The pea here is information. Displacement says that it was always there. Conservation of information provides the underlying mathematics to demonstrate that it was indeed always there.

Notes

My first serious treatment of displacement occurred in Chapter 4 of William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002).

For an account of natural selection as a probability amplifier as well as a refutation of trying to use it to overturn the logic of the design inference, see William A. Dembski and Winston Ewert, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, 2nd ed. (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2023), Chapter 7.

“Darwinism under the Microscope,” PBS television interview of William Dembski and Eugenie Scott by Peter Robinson for Uncommon Knowledge, filmed December 7, 2001, on the Stanford campus, with video available online at https://www.hoover.org/research/darwin-under-microscope-questioning‌-darwinism (last accessed December 9, 2024).

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: Norton, 1986), 45–50.

For hill climbing, see Sheldon H. Jacobson and Enver Yücesan, “Analyzing the Performance of Generalized Hill Climbing Algorithms,” Journal of Heuristics 10, no. 4 (2004): 387–405.

As Stuart Kauffman puts it, “Life uses mutation, recombination, and selection. These search procedures seem to be working quite well. Your typical bat or butterfly has managed to get itself evolved and seems a rather impressive entity… Mutation, recombination, and selection only work well on certain kinds of fitness landscapes, yet most organisms are sexual, and hence use recombination, and all organisms use mutation as a search mechanism… Where did these well-wrought fitness landscapes come from, such that evolution manages to produce the fancy stuff around us?” Kauffman answers his own question: “No one knows.” Stuart A. Kauffman, Investigations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 18–19.

For a counter-simulation of the Dawkins WEASEL simulation, see “Weasel Ware — Evolutionary Simulation,” by Winston Ewert and George Montañez at https://www.evoinfo.org/weasel.html. This counter-simulation shows how sensitive Dawkins’ simulation is to initial inputs and how easily it is set adrift when the fitness landscape is not as neat and tidy as Dawkins’s simulation demands.

Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable (New York: Norton, 1996).

See Michael J. Behe, A Mousetrap for Darwin (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2020).

The three previous paragraphs are drawn in part from a lecture I gave at Oxford University’s Ian Ramsey Centre on October 30, 2003 titled “Gauging Intelligent Design’s Success.” Though on faculty at Oxford, Richard Dawkins was not in attendance. The lecture is available at https://billdembski.com/documents/2003.11.Gauging_IDs_Success.pdf (last accessed December 13, 2024).

Richard E. Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert T. Pennock, and Christoph Adami, “The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features,” Nature 423 (May 8, 2003): 139–144.

Pennock, citing the 2003 Nature article, claims that “colleagues and I have experimentally demonstrated the evolution of an IC system.” IC here is “irreducibly complex.” Quoted from Robert T. Pennock, “DNA by Design? Stephen Meyer and the Return of the God Hypothesis,” in W.A. Dembski and M. Ruse, eds., Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, 130–148 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 141.

For ev, see Thomas D. Schneider, “Evolution of Biological Information,” Nucleic Acids Research 28, no. 14 (2000): 2794–2799. For the best place to understand Tierra, see Thomas Ray’s website https://tomray.me/tierra. For a search algorithm purported to solve the Steiner Tree problem without the need for full prior information, see Dave Thomas, “War of the Weasels: An Evolutionary Algorithm Beats Intelligent Design,” Skeptical Inquirer 34, no. 3 (2010): 42–46 and then a follow-up by Thomas titled “Target? TARGET? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Target!” https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/target-target-w-1.html (last accessed December 10, 2024).

See the counter-simulations by Ewert and Montañez at EvoInfo.org: contra Avida, see their “Minivida – Dissection of Avida Digital Evolution” at https://www.evoinfo.org/minivida; contra ev, see their “Ev Ware – Evolutionary Simulation” at https://www.evoinfo.org/ev (last accessed December 13, 2024). See also Robert J. Marks II, William A. Dembski, and Winston Ewert, Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2017), where we critique all these evolutionary simulations that purport to create novel information that exceeds their prior informational input. Dave Thomas is critiqued in this book on pages 119–120 and 241–242.

Martin Aigner, Discrete Mathematics, trans. D. Kramer (Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2007), 30.

One of the all time greats on becoming a titan.

Friday, 10 January 2025

The fossil record vs. The Darwinian narrative.

Occasinally the game puts even the GOAT in his place.

An infinite multiverse makes the mystical/magical inevitable?

The rejection of ID= The deification of physics?

To Reject Intelligent Design, Here’s What You Have to Believe

Granville Sewell

While intelligent design (ID) is a term which is becoming more familiar in our culture it is safe to say most people still misunderstand it. Since critics often misrepresent ID, and paint ID advocates as a fanatical fringe group, it is important to understand what intelligent design is, and what it is not.

Some Form of ID

Until Charles Darwin, almost everyone everywhere believed in some form of intelligent design (the majority still do): not just Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but almost every tribesman in every remote corner of the world drew the obvious conclusion from observing animals and plants that there must have been a mind behind the creation of living things.

Darwin thought he could explain all of this apparent design through natural selection of random variations. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence that natural selection can explain anything other than very minor adaptations, his theory has gained widespread popularity in the scientific world, simply because no one can come up with a more plausible theory to explain the development of life, other than intelligent design, which is dismissed by most scientists as “unscientific.”

But, in recent years, as scientific research has continually revealed the astonishing dimensions of the complexity of life, especially at the microscopic level, support for Darwin’s theory has continued to weaken, and since the publication in 1996 of Darwin’s Black Box by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, a growing minority of scientists have concluded, with Behe, that there is no possible explanation for the complexity of life without intelligent design. If scientists can spend time and money developing tools and algorithms to detect dubious signs of extraterrestrial intelligence in weak signals from outer space, why are they required to ignore the evidence in living cells where design practically leaps out at you?

What Intelligent Design Scientists Believe

But what exactly, do these “ID scientists” believe? There is no general agreement among advocates of intelligent design as to exactly where, when, or how design was manifested in the history of life. Most accept the standard timeline for the beginning of the universe, of life, and of the major animal groups.

Some accept common descent, although most recognize that this “descent” was not really gradual. (In fact, most of the animal phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record about 530 million years ago in the “Cambrian explosion,” as documented in Stephen Meyer’s 2013 book Darwin’s Doubt.) Probably all reject natural selection as an adequate explanation for the development of life, but so do many other scientists who are not ID proponents. So what exactly do you have to believe to be an ID proponent?

What You Have to Believe

Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to state clearly what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design. Peter Urone, in his 2001 physics text College Physics, writes, “One of the most remarkable simplifications in physics is that only four distinct forces account for all known phenomena.” The prevailing view in science today is that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus, physics alone explains the human mind and all it does.

This is what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design, that the origin and evolution of life, and the evolution of human consciousness and intelligence, are due entirely to a few unintelligent forces of physics. The new Video A Mathematician’s View of Evolution dramatizes this through reductio ad absurdum, pointing out that if you don’t believe there was intelligence involved in the origin or evolution of life, or in the origin of human intelligence, you essentially believe that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics on Earth into computers and science texts and jet airplanes.

Contrary to popular belief, to be an ID proponent you do not have to believe that all species were created simultaneously a few thousand years ago, or that humans are unrelated to earlier primates, or that natural selection cannot cause bacteria to develop a resistance to antibiotics. If you believe that a few fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones, you are probably not an ID proponent, even if you believe in God.

Welcome Aboard!

But if you believe there must have been more than unintelligent forces at work somewhere, somehow, in the origin of life and the development of intelligent humans: congratulations, you are one of us after all!

Furthermore, the evidence uncovered in the last half century has forced many scientists who insist that unintelligent laws of nature explain everything to accept that design is required to explain the spectacular fine-tuning for life of the laws and constants of physics themselves.

These scientists are sometimes considered to be intelligent design supporters as well. One of the three discoveries discussed in Stephen Meyer’s 2021 book Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe is this well-documented fine-tuning. Notice the long list of distinguished scientists who have formally endorsed the book, including physics Nobel Prize-winner Brian Josephson who writes, “This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.”

Thursday, 9 January 2025

Political messiah's are not saving the homeless?

Yet more on why the multiverse fails at explaining away the finetuning argument for design.

Neanderthals: disinherited no more? II

Neanderthals May Be “Same Species” As Us

Evolution News

At ScienceAlert, David Nield Reports on a new study from the University of Padua:

Our species is defined by a long list of cultural and genetic traits that set us apart from our ancient counterparts.

New research suggests at least some key distinctions date back earlier than previously estimated, hinting that modern and archaic humans — including our close, extinct relatives — have more in common than we ever thought.

“Our results point to a scenario where Modern and Archaic should be regarded as populations of an otherwise common human species, which independently accumulated mutations and cultural innovations,” writes a team of researchers led by biologist Luca Pagani from the University of Padova in Italy.

“Archaic Humans Might Actually Be The Same Species as Us, Study Suggests,” January 7, 2025

Or, as Justin Jackson puts it at Phys.org, “Findings challenge traditional models that attribute certain genetic innovations exclusively to modern Homo sapiens. Similarities observed in both modern and archaic human genomes suggest many hallmarks of the Homo sapiens genetic landscape arose before the lineages split.”

Coalescence Analyses and Molecular Clock Assessments

Specifically, the abstract of the open-access preprint reads,

Homo sapiens diverged from its ancestors in fundamental ways, reflected in recent genomic acquisitions like the PAR2-Y chromosome translocation. Here we show that despite morphological and cultural differences between modern and archaic humans, these human groups share these recent acquisitions. Our modern lineage shows recent functional variants in only 56 genes, of which 24 are linked to brain functions and skull morphology.

Luca Pagani et al., Partitioning the genomic journey to becoming Homo sapiens, bioRxiv (2024)

Using coalescence analyses and molecular clock assessments, the researchers reconstructed a timeline of genetic events, according to which a population bottleneck of humans occurred about 900,000 years ago. Then modern humans diverged from Neanderthals and Denisovans about 650,000 years ago. And they also mingled again about 350,000 years ago.

This version of human history counters the usual tendency to keep Neanderthals and Denisovans separate from modern humans — most likely because in an evolution-based scheme, someone must be the subhuman.

And now who will researchers draft for that role?

The forever schoolyard as a career?

Mind breaking puzzle demystified.

Our story in our own words.

A pledge of eternal sacred service.

Psalm ch.19:10,11NIV"They are more precious than gold,

than much pure gold;

they are sweeter than honey,

than honey from the honeycomb.

11By them your servant is warned;

in keeping them there is great reward."

If you do not see sacred service according to JEHOVAH'S truth as it's own reward then paradise whether the heavenly paradise or the earthly paradise is not your thing. Because the perfect paradise is essentially sacred service on steroids,

Revelation ch.4:8NIV"Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “’Holy, holy, holy is the LORD God Almighty,’ who was, and is, and is to come.”"

Darwinists invite us to come see Darwinism for our selves.

“Evolution in Real Time” (Yeah, Right)

Daniel Witt

The difficulty about denying evolution is that it’s happening all around us. I mean, just look — every few weeks or so another breathless press release or news article announces that scientists have observed “evolution in real time.”

Although these reports do not often mention that there is a debate over evolution, they serve an important rhetorical purpose in that debate. After all, the biggest challenge to Darwin’s theory is that it might not work in theory — the math does not seem to add up. One way to deal with the theoretical problems is to simply sidestep them altogether: “Maybe it doesn’t seem that evolution should work — but look, it’s happening right before your eyes!”

And it’s true — countless experiments do show evolution in real time. The trouble is, “evolution” itself isn’t really the thing in question in the evolution debate. Everyone who knows anything about biology (and most who don’t) believes in evolution in some sense of the word. After all, Darwin was not the first to notice that variations exist within populations, or that children can be different from their parents, or that some of these variations confer survival benefits while others are detrimental. The big question is whether these factors alone can drive the construction of novel complex systems of interrelated parts, such as characterize biological life.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at a few of the most recent “evolution in real time” proclamations, and see whether any of them actually bears relevance to the evolution debate.

1. Evolving to Be Normal (in the Mountains)

A recent case of “evolution in action” comes from a Study of human (for now!) women in Tibet. A news article dramatically proclaims: “Humans Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes on the Tibetan Plateau.”

So, what are the new features of these evolving humans? (Are they on their way to becoming an alien species?)

Well, according to the study, Tibetan women are able to deal with high altitudes better than women of other ethnic backgrounds, on average, because they have … unusually normal hemoglobin levels. Excessive hemoglobin makes the blood more viscous, impeding circulation, and no women in the study had excessively high hemoglobin. In other words, there was loss of variety in the population, as traits that caused problems were eliminated by the harsh environment. The study also found that Tibetan women with traits favoring circulation (a wide left ventricle in the heart, etc.) were able to have more live births than Tibetan women with poorer circulation.

Basically, the study shows that harsh environments can weed out the unfit — which isn’t exactly a controversial idea. The study does indeed prove “evolution,” in the broad sense of the word. But it does not prove anything that is currently being debated.

2. Staying the Same — In the Blink of an Eye!

According to a news report from October 2024, the recently published results of a 30-year-long study demonstrate “evolution happening in real time” in snail populations. The researchers introduced crab snails to an environment inhabited by wave snails, and watched as the poorly adapted crab snails evolved over generations to look more like the well-adapted wave snails. The article informs us:

Normally, scientists have believed that it takes countless centuries for evolution to produce major changes in any species. However, a new study has witnessed this amazing process unfold in a figurate blink of an eye.

The rhetoric here should be obvious: If evolution can happen in just 30 years, why should we doubt that it can happen over millions of years?

And what kind of amazing new features is evolution able to conjure up in the “blink of an eye”?

Well, features that were already there:

What makes this study particularly fascinating is that the snails didn’t evolve these new traits from scratch. Instead, they tapped into genetic diversity that was already present in their population, albeit at low levels.

and possibly traits that slipped in through some hanky-panky with the locals

…This existing genetic variation, combined with possible gene flow from neighboring wave snail populations, allowed for rapid adaptation to the new environment.

3. The Importance of Already Existing

A similar example of “evolution in real time” comes from 2020 press release from the University of Vienna, announcing that Parachlamydia bacteria can adapt to their host to become more infectious.

So how do they adapt? Well, according to the Study, the population adapted largely by means of some genes that were already there getting passed on more than some other genes that were also already there: “standing genetic variation in the initial ancestral population — the founder Chlamydia and amoeba populations from which both regimes were initiated — appeared to be particularly important for the observed evolutionary changes.”

I would submit that that is to be expected.

4. “Evolving” into a Baby

Of course, I am not denying that novel mutations happens. Sometimes, by random error, a truly novel genetic sequence appears, and sometimes the change is adaptive. However, complex systems don’t get built this way.

So, a 2016 Article in Science boasted:

Many people think evolution requires thousands or millions of years, but biologists know it can happen fast. Now, thanks to the genomic revolution, researchers can actually track the population-level genetic shifts that mark evolution in action — and they’re doing this in humans.

But you can probably guess the type of changes that are measured. Lactose tolerance, blue eyes, blond hair, etc. These are minor variations within complex systems, not the construction of complex systems.

An especially ironic example is lactose tolerance. Babies consume lots of lactose in breastmilk, but human bodies are programmed to turn off that function after we stop nursing — or, that was the case until some humans started the practice of eternally nursing their bovine neighbors. Then (the classic story goes) “lactase persistence” was selected for, and the lactose processing facilities were never shut down. Michael Behe has compared this adaptation to “a small screw falling out of your car that renders the emergency brake inoperable.” The appearance of lactose tolerance doesn’t show evolution in action making any complex, new thing — it shows us becoming perpetual babies when we learned that some big, dumb animals would let us nurse them.

Whenever you hear about evolution in action, you can be sure that it wasn’t caught in action building a novel structure — at best, it was seen causing a neutral tweak to an existing structure, and at worst it was caught jettisoning sophisticated equipment for short term benefits.

5. Proving “Evolution” to the Yokels

A 2019 Article in The Atlantic tells the story of evolutionary biologist Rowan Barrett’s adventures capturing “evolution in real time” (as the title of the article puts it) in rural Nebraska. It’s a nice fish-out-of-water story:

Roughly a third of Nebraskans believe that living things were created as they are now. Another third think that evolution occurs, but through God’s design. Given those beliefs, I asked Barrett whether he ever encountered resistance when talking to his new friends about his work. “In the early trips, when first meeting people, I would talk generally about genetics and natural selection. I wouldn’t use the E word,” he said. “It’s one of those trigger words where, in certain parts of the U.S., people just stop listening to you.”

But he added that all of them comprehended the essence of evolution, even if they explicitly rejected it. “A lot of them are farmers, who have a very good understanding of inheritance, and genetics,” he said. “A lot of them hunt, so they’ve got the survival-of-the-fittest thing down. They understand variation, and they know that a slow deer is easier to shoot than a fast deer. Inheritance, variation, fitness … all the pieces are there.”

“I’d never push too hard. I never explicitly said, ‘Do you believe in it or not? Have I now convinced you?’” he told me. “I just had some long conversations over beers at BBQs and high-school football games. And I found that in subsequent trips, I could use the E word and not get the flinch.”

Yes, all the pieces are there…but what do they add up to? Barrett’s study is about changes in things like mouse fur color, which should be no cause for alarm even for the most science-hating creationist in Nebraska. A mutation that changes the color of a mouse’s fur is one thing, but building a mouse by compiling such mutations is another.

6. The Same, but Bigger

Granted, some evolutionary changes are more dramatic — but only superficially so.

For example, an April 2024 article reports that Dr. Tyrone Lavery at University of Melbourne has observed “evolutionary phenomenon happening rapidly” — lineages of large bats evolving from smaller bats multiple times across the Solomon Islands.

However, as Lavery himself notes, “Although they are very different sizes, the bats’ DNA is very similar.”

Some traits are dramatic, but don’t indicate an increase in complexity or a fundamentally new structure. And again (once again) fundamentally new complex structures are the main thing in question.

7. How to Put Things in a Pile — Without God

Another report, from the University of Konstanz in 2021, claims that researchers found the genetic imprint of “the surprisingly rapid transition from unicellular to multicellular life.” The rapidity is less surprising, however, after the authors clarify that what was observed was actually evidence of the “first step” towards multicellularity. That first step? Growing in a clump. It turns out there is a mutation in single-celled algae that causes them to clump together.

This is like putting a thousand identical screws in a pile, and saying you’ve accomplished the first step to making a car. That may be true, but the later steps — melting the bolts downs and forging them into more specialized pieces and then assembling them properly — are probably going to be more difficult.

8. Even Darwin Underestimated the Power of Evolution!

A Guardian article from this past July is titled “Biologist Rosemary Grant: ‘Evolution happens much quicker than Darwin thought’.”

Of course, the implication is that, contrary to the claim that Darwin overestimated the power of evolution, he actually underestimated it. But what evidence is Dr. Grant referring to? Well, the average beak and body size of a finch changed as the result of drought, quicker than Darwin estimated. Again, this is proof that evolution is real — but not that it has creative powers.

9. A Whole New… “Species

A related claim made about the finches in the drought is that that they evolved into a new species. This is true, but it may convey the wrong idea. When we talk about the origin of “species” it sounds like we’re referring to the creation of entirely different kinds of creature, with novel body plans, organs, and so forth. However, the most common definition of species, the “biological species concept,” is technical and much broader. Under this definition, any two populations of organisms are considered separate species if they are reproductively isolated; i.e., can’t or won’t reproduce with each other.

In the case of the finches, the drought caused their average beak size to increase from generation to generation, since birds that could crush harder seeds were more likely to survive the drought — and this changed their mating call, eventually making it unrecognizable to non-drought-influenced finches. Thus they won’t mate with each other, and therefore, based on the biological species concept, they are different species.

According to this definition of species, Democrats and Republicans are pretty close to achieving speciation. But that’s hardly an impressive evolutionary feat.

10. “Evolution” by U-Haul

Yet another article announces that a sociological study has found that public attention towards the lionfish (pictured at the top) “is aiding in monitoring its evolution nearly in real time.”

To be exact, it is the range of the lionfish that is evolving — they are migrating to different waters.

(And that probably takes the cake for least impressive example of “evolution in real time.”)

11.Wait, There’s More!

They just keep coming.

Mere hours ago (as of this writing) Georgia Tech put out a research press release announcing “some of the clearest evidence to date of evolution in action.”

The study does indeed show evolution in action. The researchers were observing a species of anole lizards in the wild over the course of several years, when, fortuitously (for the researchers, not the anoles), another species of anole invaded. That meant that the scientists were able to see whether the presence of new competition changed the native species.

And sure enough, it did. The original anoles were driven from their preferred perch locations in the trees, and had to spend more time on the ground. The population size plummeted, and the anoles that had longer legs and were therefore better at running on the flat ground were more likely to survive. As the researchers predicted, after a few years the average leg length in the population was somewhat longer than the average leg length before the invasion. The short-limbed losers had been weeded out by natural selection.

I find this interesting, from an ecological perspective. But, once again, it does not add anything new to the debate about evolution. Nobody doubts that natural selection can change a population. What biologists like Michael Behe doubt is that such selective pressure has limitless potential, to the point of even constructing whole new organs and body plans. That’s where the mathematical difficulties seems to show up: if a new bodily feature requires foresight to construct (because the adaptive function only appears after multiple requisite feature are in place and working in unison), then “evolution by means of national selection and random variation” would be no better at constructing it than pure “random variation” would be.

The anole study, while interesting, has nothing to offer regarding that problem.

If anything, it fits the predictions of the opposing camp. The researchers write that after they observed initial change, they expected to see leg length continue to increase. Yet, so far, it hasn’t. It seems that the anole evolution has hit a bump in the road.

Perhaps, as the researchers are currently predicting, leg length will resume its increase after a few more years. Be that that as it may, I am making the prediction that however long the anoles’ legs become, they will never turn into something more sophisticated than legs.

I am confident in this prediction, because, in spite of all the times evolution has been caught “in action,” no experiment or observation has ever falsified Behe’s key prediction: because natural selection lacks foresight and is not a true designer, it invariably runs out of power before it can construct anything new.

In Conclusion

So, what is the verdict?

As we established, for an observation to constitute a meaningful contribution to the evolution debate, it needs to show evolution’s constructive power, because that is the aspect of evolution that is under debate. Yet, consistently, the observations don’t show that. Instead, they fall into three categories: observations of (1) traits that were already present in the population, (2) traits that were already present in the genome, but were unexpressed, and (3) genuine novelties which, however, did not increase the design sophistication of the organism.

Notes

For example, molecular biologist Michael Behe has (in)famously pointed out that although Darwin’s mechanism of random variation and natural selection can explain a lot, it has trouble explaining exactly what most needs explaining: the kind of intricately complex structures that characterize life. These structures need many components carefully in place before they can confer any survival advantage at all, so the mechanism of natural selection could not have done any good until the very end of the construction process. More recently, Behe has argued that natural selection should be expected to decrease complexity over time, on average, rather than increase it, because (a) loss and damage of sophisticated systems can sometimes confer a survival advantage, and (b) loss and destruction is always vastly more probably than construction.

Pages

Search This Blog

Friday, 17 January 2025

Thursday, 16 January 2025

Wednesday, 15 January 2025

Tuesday, 14 January 2025

Monday, 13 January 2025

Dark Matter and Intelligent Design: A Prediction

Sunday, 12 January 2025

Saturday, 11 January 2025

The Displacement Fallacy: Evolution’s Shell Game

Friday, 10 January 2025

To Reject Intelligent Design, Here’s What You Have to Believe

Thursday, 9 January 2025

Neanderthals May Be “Same Species” As Us

“Evolution in Real Time” (Yeah, Right)

Pageviews last month