Monday, 3 February 2025
Sunday, 2 February 2025
Forensic examination of the explosion that demolished Darwin's house continues
Dodging the Main Issue in the Cambrian Explosion
Concerning the well-known and persistent problem of the Cambrian explosion, Stephen Meyer stated the issue as clearly and succinctly as possible in his best-selling book Darwin’s Doubt: “the origin of new biological information” (p. ix). He has repeated this issue in videos, interviews, debates, articles and speeches before and after 2013, the book’s publication date. Indeed, it was the central issue in Meyer’s Smithsonian paper that led to Richard Sternberg’s ouster in 2004. With scientists in the ID movement stating this issue continually for more than two decades, evolutionary biologists cannot claim ignorance of it. Yet to the present day, they dodge it. In three recent papers, we see how they talk about everything and anything but the issue: the origin of new biological information. Let’s consider these papers in order of publication.
Molecular Clock Fiddling
Last November, Philip C. J. Donoghue of the University of Bristol (mentioned by Bechly here) with three colleagues struggled to calibrate the Ediacaran and Cambrian fossil record to the “molecular clock” hypothesis (see my discussion of the molecular clock here). Getting these two data sources to fit has been a pervasive challenge along the entire evolutionary timeline. The abstract of their paper in Science Advances1 claims success, but ends with a quizzical statement:
Integrating across uncertainties including phylogenetic relationships, clock model, and calibration strategy, we estimate Metazoa to have originated in the early Ediacaran, Eumetazoa in the middle Ediacaran, and Bilateria in the upper Ediacaran, with many crown-phyla originating across the Ediacaran-Cambrian interval or elsewise fully within the Cambrian. These results are in much closer accord with the fossil record, coinciding with marine oxygenation, but they reject a literal reading of the fossil record.
By that, they mean that if you calibrate the molecular clock to certain fossils, they do not fit most of the other fossils. Is their conclusion as anti-empirical as it sounds? You be the judge:
Our results suggest that there was a radiation of metazoans beginning in the middle Ediacaran, with all major phyla originating by the late Cambrian (Fig. 5), although this may have taken a little under 100 Myr based on the maximum and minimum age estimates for all of the phyla, suggesting the “Cambrian explosion” was more drawn-out than a literal reading of the fossil record would suggest. Although crown-Metazoa originated in the Ediacaran, many of the crown-phyla did not originate until the Cambrian; Euarthropoda, Echinodermata, Ctenophora, Hemichordata, Rotifera, and Chaetognatha likely originated in the Cambrian, while Chordata, Cnidaria, and Mollusca have late Ediacaran origins.
What this means is that the Cambrian explosion is evident from the fossils, but you cannot trust the observational evidence — the “literal” reading of the fossils — to perceive the truth of evolution. Don’t believe your eyes. Belief in evolution requires the belief in the existence of ancestors. Since evolutionists cannot see them, they must infer their presence from the molecular clock. But since the molecular clock hypothesis is built on the assumption of evolution, this is circular reasoning.2
Nowhere do these four evolutionists address the main issue: the origin of new biological information. Score: Dodgers, 1. (No opponent score given, since they are playing against themselves. Darwin skeptics have been disqualified by fiat, so they watch the game from the sidelines and call fouls.)
Tracking the Explosion
The next paper, published in Current Biology3 this month, tries to tease out differences between animal tracks and environmental traces on an exposed benthic deposit in Canada that lies on the boundary of the late Ediacaran and “the onset of the Cambrian explosion.”
The Cambrian explosion was a time of groundbreaking ecological shifts related to the establishment of the Phanerozoic biosphere. Trace fossils, which are the products of animals interacting with their substrates, provide a key record of the diversification of the benthos and the evolution of behavioral complexity through this interval.
The seven authors accumulate “The most extensive ichnologic dataset compiled from any Ediacaran-Cambrian section.” They believe that their resulting matrix of ichnofossils (some interpretation was required) will help with “refining our understanding of the early stages of the Cambrian explosion.” Mentions of evolution: 15. Mentions of biological or genetic information: zero.3
Notice their choice of noun phrases to dodge the cause of all the novelty:
The Cambrian explosion was a time of groundbreaking ecological shifts related to the establishment of the Phanerozoic biosphere.
Score: Dodgers, 2.
Getting Permission to Evolve
The third paper by seven authors, mostly from the University of Edinburgh, was published in Science Advances a few days later5. A refinement of the old Oxygen Theory for the Cambrian explosion (here, here), this new paper presents the notion that “Low oxygen but dynamic marine redox conditions permitted the Cambrian Radiation.”
The team inferred oxygen abundances and fluctuations on the Siberian Platform by proxy measurements. Surprise; the earliest Cambrian body plans were not dependent on oxygenation.
Whether metazoan diversification during the Cambrian Radiation was driven by increased marine oxygenation remains highly debated. Repeated global oceanic oxygenation events have been inferred during this interval, but the degree of shallow marine oxygenation and its relationship to biodiversification and clade appearance remain uncertain. To resolve this, we interrogate an interval from ~527 to 519 Ma, encompassing multiple proposed global oceanic oxygenation events…. We document primarily dysoxic water column conditions, suggesting that early Cambrian metazoans, including motile skeletal benthos, had low oxygen demands. We further document oxygenation events coincident with positive carbon isotope excursions that led to modestly elevated oxygen levels. These events correspond to regional increases in species richness and habitat expansion of mainly endemic species, offering a potentially globally applicable model for biodiversification during the Cambrian Radiation.
By stating without dispute that “A causal relationship between increasing shallow marine oxygenation and the Cambrian Radiation has long been proposed,” they essentially agree with the Oxygen Theory. Only the degree of oxygenation needed their clarification: “but it is not clear whether oxygen availability rose progressively through this interval and, if so, how this promoted biotic innovation and the radiation of early metazoans.” In other words, they want to answer how much oxygen was needed to trigger the explosion. You can’t just add oxygen. You have to add the right amount of oxygen. Then, bang!
One novel twist in their hypothesis is that evolution is permitted with or without oxygen; but with it, animals can move around. More noun phrases conceal their notion that oxygen gives animals permission to evolve. It enables them. It promotes them.
There has been much debate as to the actual drivers of an evolutionary response to oxygenation. Rising oxygen levels (potentially driven by increased productivity and organic matter burial) may have deepened the redoxcline, thereby extending habitable water depths. Enhanced oxygenation may also have enabled the evolution of more metabolically costly ecologies such as mobility and carnivory, as well as the ability to produce skeletal hard parts, thus promoting animal-sediment mixing and evolutionary escalation. Conversely, the presence of shallow marine anoxia itself might have formed physical barriers to dispersal and, thus, dynamic redox variability over evolutionary timescales may have promoted reproductive isolation and speciation.
Oxygen is like a ticket to ride. With oxygen, animals are permitted to evolve and swim. Without it, they have to stay put and evolve in place. These authors continue using other synonyms for permission: oxygen facilitates evolution; it makes animals able to expand and diversify. They almost catch themselves thinking the notion is crazy.
While a rise in oxygen levels has been suggested to facilitate the evolution of costly ecologies, it does not offer a definitive mechanism for the origination of new clades or the appearance of key evolutionary innovations, such as a biomineralization, bilaterality, and segmentation, but may rather provide a viable mechanism by which existing metazoan clades are able to expand their habitat range and so diversify.
Translation: Oxygen didn’t cause the Cambrian explosion. It just gave animals their “get up and go.” What did cause the Cambrian explosion, then? No answer.
Evolution gets 11 mentions by this team; biological or genetic information gets (again) zero. Score: Dodgers 3.
Until the Darwinians address the main issue in the Cambrian explosion, the expelled opposing team needs to keep shouting to the Dodgers through bullhorns from the sidelines, “But what about the origin of biological information?”
Notes
Carlisle, Donoghue et al., Ediacaran origin and Ediacaran-Cambrian diversification of Metazoa. Science Advances, 13 Nov 2024 (open access). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adp7161.
“There is no shortage of rhetoric that pitches molecular clock methodology and the fossil record as opposed and incompatible, but, given that molecular clock analyses are usually calibrated using fossil evidence, this is self-evidently false. Molecular clock methods provide a means of interpreting the fossil record in establishing a timescale for evolutionary history and, hence, they are in tension only with alternative approaches to inferring evolutionary time from the fossil record [like ID?]. There can be no doubt that the fossil record requires interpretation since it can be demonstrated intrinsically to be an imperfect temporal archive of evolutionary history.” Translation: Because evolution requires ancestors, and fossils do not provide them, we have to infer their existence without literal fossil evidence by “interpreting” the molecular clock (which assumes evolution).
They mention “novel architectural designs in ichnotaxa” but explain them as a “novel evolutionary event”— which sounds like, “Bang! New body plans! No intelligence allowed.”
Gougeon, Minter et al., Environmental and evolutionary controls in animal-sediment interactions at the onset of the Cambrian explosion. Current Biology, 20 Jan 2025 (open access). DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.11.028.
Alexander, Wood et al., Low oxygen but dynamic marine redox conditions permitted the Cambrian Radiation. Science Advances, 24 Jan 2024 (open access). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.ads2846
Saturday, 1 February 2025
Friday, 31 January 2025
Thursday, 30 January 2025
Pterosaurs: yet more magical thinking from Darwin?
Magical Thinking: Can Pterosaurs Be Darwinized
Baloney detecting is a skill we all learn to some degree and can sharpen with practice. It’s useful, among other areas, in detecting logical and evidentiary flaws in evolutionary interpretations of fossils. Here, let’s think about how evolutionary paleontologists use and abuse concepts of evolution in recent discoveries about pterosaurs.
Neil Thomas has written about “Evolutionary Theory as Magical Thinking” and there is no shortage of examples in the literature on fossils. When reading a scientific paper, one of the first things I do is search through for the use of the word evolution and related words like origin, mutation, transition, and selection. This gives me a sense of the authors’ outlook and where they are headed when it comes to interpreting the data and putting it in context. We start with an article in Current Biology by David Martill, professor of paleobiology at the University of Portsmouth in England.
Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing
When it comes to pterosaurs, surely the most remarkable trait they possessed was powered flight. This multi-faceted, irreducibly complex marvel, Martill informs us, evolved. It just evolved! He couches the magical aspect of his belief in synonyms that not only assume evolution but distract from the marvel of flight and all the engineering requirements to achieve it. A Boeing 747 is said to consist of six million non-flying parts. It’s the engineered arrangement of the parts that permits the function.
Flight, moreover, is an all-or-nothing feat. “You don’t just partly fly,” Paul Nelson quipped in the Illustra film Flight. For a pterosaur to fly, everything about its body had to be designed for that function. Evolutionary paleontologists distract from this most important point through the use of magic words. Martill says (emphasis added),
“Pterosaurs…were the first vertebrates to take to the air”
“Pterosaurs… were the first vertebrates to evolve powered flight”
“Birds… overcame similar problems related to flight”
“…. by becoming better walkers, pterosaurs overcame an evolutionary obstacle”
Did they do these things with foresight and planning? Obviously not. In Darwinism, organisms are the passive beneficiaries of sheer dumb luck. Natalia Jagielska at the University of Edinburgh, whose team found a pterosaur fossil on the Island of Skye (see BBC News), continues the use of magic words in her post at The Conversation:
“…. the first vertebrates to master flight.”
“It took some time for active flight to evolve in the natural world.”
“[in the Triassic,] the first bony animals took to the skies.”
“Birds flapped into existence sometime in the Jurassic….”
“Bats were the last to the race….”
“Pterosaurs were pioneers of flight….”
Günter Bechly referred to this kind of explanation as “Darwinian magic” and found it in probability words such as likely, potentially, and maybe. Jagielska illustrates this talent:
My team’s new study may help solve the evolutionary mystery, revealing how a vane on the tip of their tails may have helped these ancient animals fly more efficiently.
Martill also employs this skill, as do other papers we will look at.
Hiding Gaps with Tarp
Dr. Bechly often pointed out the “explosions” of diversity that are seen in the fossil record: complex organisms and body plans fully formed without ancestors (e.g., here). The pterosaur record is a prime example (here), where the first one was already capable of powered flight. It “looks like they appeared out of thin air,” wrote Bechly (here), as he examined proposed flightless ancestors like Scleromochlus and Venetoraptor. Here, in a Fossil Friday article about Ludodactylus, he said,
Outside of Darwinian fantasy land, we indeed lack any transitional fossils that would document an assumed gradual evolutionary development of characteristic pterosaur wings. In my view this strongly suggests that the transition happened very quickly as an abrupt saltation rather than mediated by hundreds of transitional species, for which there is not a shred of empirical evidence.
Darwinians, by habit, accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, presenting a distorted view of the record. Do the recent papers present a transitional form from flightless to flying? Do any of the Darwinian experts on pterosaurs use the word transitional? Yes! David Martill does, but only when discussing changes between pterosaurs fully capable of flight, not before them. Moreover, the transition, he argues, happened only in the feet. From this he assumes that grandpappy wing-lizard (the meaning of “pterosaur”) was evolving from landing in trees to walking on the ground. Think of the Darwinian magic such a transition permitted!
Intriguingly, this new pterosaur [Skiphosaura bavarica, announced by David Hone and colleagues] does show some significant modification of the foot skeleton, with dramatic changes to the fifth toe. In basal pterosaurs, the fifth toe is highly elongate, complex, with a 100 degree or more flexure that redirects it posteriorly. In the new pterosaur this fifth toe is reduced, and the bend has all but disappeared, showing a radical restructuring of the foot. This feature also occurs in two other non-pterodactyloids, Douzhanopterus and Propterodactylus, and hints at a more terrestrial lifestyle for these transitional forms.
More Magic Words
All of these specimens were flyers. Martill mentions other differences between them and fellow fossil pterosaurs. Do any of these differences create new organs or flight capabilities? Employing more magic words, Martill makes much ado about some non-flying parts.
This evolutionary transition from climbing to walking was accompanied by other changes achieved at different evolutionary speeds. Notable among these shifts was an increase in the size of the skull, an elongation of the neck, lengthening of the carpus and a reduction in the length of the tail. Later, among the pterodactyloids even more radical shifts occurred, including the evolution of dental filters (as in Pterodaustro from the Cretaceous of Argentina), loss of the dentition in at least two major clades (azhdarchids and pteranodontians), the development of elaborate head crests, as well as ultra-gigantism where wingspans reached more than 9 m in at least two clades: Azhdarchidae and Ornithocheiridae. The analysis of Smyth and colleagues, and the new discovery of Hone and colleagues (and many other pterosaur studies over the last decades) make clear that by becoming better walkers, pterosaurs overcame an evolutionary obstacle that was limiting their ecological diversity. Once over this hurdle, pterosaurs seem to have come down from the trees, became aquatic, adopted an incredible range of feeding strategies, as exemplified by their diverse dentitions, and became giants. Who would have believed that the secret to their evolutionary success was the feet?
Yes, there is diversity among pterosaur species, but Martill assumes those differences in head, teeth, and body size occurred by Darwin’s mutation and selection process.
In their paper in Current Biology, David Hone and colleagues make a big deal about transitions between their prize fossil Skiphosaura and other species, which he says “helps document the transition from early pterosaurs to the pterodactyloids.” This is like pointing out different flight characteristics of jet fighters while ignoring the origin of powered flight in manned aircraft.
In an earlier Current Biology paper, Smyth, Unwin, and colleagues use the word “transition” in a similar way: alleging transitions between pterosaur families while ignoring the origin of flight (though sneaking in Scleromochlus in their phylogenetic tree diagram). While trading in magic words, why not multiply them fourfold?
This transition to predominantly ground-based locomotor ecologies did not occur as a single event coinciding with the origin of short-tailed forms but evolved independently within each of the four principal radiations: euctenochasmatians, ornithocheiroids, dsungaripteroids, and azhdarchoids. Invasion of terrestrial environments by pterosaurs facilitated the evolution of a wide range of novel feeding ecologies, while the freedom from limitations imposed by climbing permitted an increase in body size, ultimately enabling the evolution of gigantism in multiple lineages.
Permission Granted
It’s amazing what little changes in foot bones and finger bones “permitted” Darwin to do with these four groups. They were all powerful flyers, however, before the diversity appeared in the fossils. Smyth says in news from the University of Leicester, “Unlike birds, which must grow before achieving flight, even the smallest Pterodactylus were capable of flight from an early age.” Like Martill and Hone, Smyth only addresses transitions from arboreal to cursorial lifestyles and diets, inferred (not observed, because they are extinct) on the basis of foot bones.
Of interest on a side note, Smyth and Unwin dispute the classification of two species, Pterodactylus antiquus and Diopecephalus kochi, which they regard as “two troublesome taxonomic concepts” (Journal of Systematic Paleontology). We can only wonder what the future will hold for re-evaluating pterosaur phylogeny.
Monday, 27 January 2025
Sunday, 26 January 2025
Here's what needs to happen before any of Christendom’s minions attempt to remove the straw from my eye.
Luke ch.6:42NIV"How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
By it's fruits a tree is known
Acts ch.7:15-27NIV"“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat agains"
Galatians ch.5:22,23NIV"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
Galatians ch.5:19-21NIV"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Ps. No Spamming allowed,I hope I'm not talking over anyone's head.
The thumb print of JEHOVAH :molecular edition.
Recurring Design Logic in Gene Regulation
A feature of biology that has struck me over the years is the phenomenon of recurring design logic, even across systems that do not appear to be related by descent. This is a feature that is quite surprising on the supposition that a mindless process is responsible for life’s origins, but is precisely what we might predict on the hypothesis that a mind played an important role. In other realms of experience, when we encounter recurring design logic, we habitually associate it with intelligent causes. For example, there are features of paintings that characterize a particular painter’s work, and features of buildings that are common between edifices designed by the same architect. There are even aspects of one’s writing that are distinctive of an individual author. This, then, is an example of a prediction made by the hypothesis of purposeful design — something we expect to see on the supposition of the involvement of an intelligent mind. There are plenty of examples of this sort of phenomenon in biology. For illustration purposes, I will focus here on one class of recurring design logic — two-component regulatory systems in bacteria.
What Are Two-Component Regulatory Systems?
Bacterial cells use two-component systems to sense and respond to environmental changes. As their name suggests, two-component systems characteristically involve two components — a sensor kinase and a response regulator. The sensor kinase, in response to a chemical or physical stimulus, undergoes autophosphorylation, whereby a phosphate group is transferred from ATP to a histidine residue on the kinase. The histidine protein kinase has two domains: an input domain and a transmitter domain. The former is located on the outside of the cell, and is ideally situated to detect incoming environmental signals. The latter is situated on the cytoplasmic face of the cell membrane, and is positioned such that it can interact with the response regulator. The phosphate group is transferred to the response regulator, which then drives a cellular response, such as turning genes on or off.
Two-component systems are extremely common among bacteria, and each utilizes the same basic design logic. In what follows, I shall provide a short survey of a few such examples.
Regulation of Outer Membrane Proteins in Escherichia coli
A two-component system regulates the expression of porins in response to environmental osmolarity (a measure of the concentration of solute particles in a solution). The sensor kinase for this system, located in the inner membrane, is EnvZ. EnvZ detects osmolarity changes and undergoes autophosphorylation. The response regulator, OmpR, receives the phosphate group from EnvZ and regulates the expression of genes.
When osmolarity is high, the kinase activity of EnvZ is activated, resulting in the phosphorylation of OmpR. When osmolarity is low, the phosphatase activity of EnvZ is activated, reducing levels of phosphorylated OmpR.
Upon phosphorylation, OmpR becomes an active dimer that has enhanced DNA-binding ability specific to ompC and ompF gene promoters. These are are porin genes that encode outer membrane proteins (which allow the passage of metabolites across the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria). The pore diameter of OmpF is larger than OmpC. This allows for a ten-fold faster diffusion rate, which is advantageous under conditions of low osmolarity where nutrients are scarce. If osmotic pressure is low, the synthesis of OmpF is increased. If osmotic pressure is high, the expression of OmpC is increased. Moreover, transcription of micFantisense RNA is initiated. micF blocks translation of ompF by complementary binding – the synthesis of OmpF is thereby repressed.
Regulation of Chemotaxis
Bacteria are able to move towards a food source, such as glucose, by a process known as “chemotaxis.” A requisite for this process to work is the ability of the bacterial flagellar motor to literally shift gears so that it switches from spinning counter-clockwise to rotating clockwise. This change in rotation is brought about in response to chemical stimuli from the cell’s exterior. These chemical signals are detected by a two-component signal transduction circuit that operates to induce the switch in flagellar rotation.
Readers may find it helpful to refer to the following diagram while reading the descriptions that follow:
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
How do bacteria detect a chemical gradient? The answer lies in a certain class of transmembrane receptors called methyl-accepting chemotaxis proteins (hereafter, MCPs). Different MCPs can detect different types of molecules, and are able to bind attractants or repellents. These receptors then communicate with — and activate — the so-called “Che proteins.”.
Proteins called CheA and CheW are bound to the receptor. The former is the histidine kinase for this system. Upon activation of the receptor, the CheA’s conserved histidine residue undergoes autophosphorylation. There are two response regulators called CheB and CheY. There is a transfer of a phosphoryl group to their conserved aspartate residue from CheA. CheY subsequently interacts with the flagellar switch protein called FliM. This induces the switching in flagellar direction from counterclockwise to clockwise.
This clockwise rotation upsets the entire flagella bundle and causes it to break up. The result is that the bacterium “tumbles.” This means that bacteria are able to re-direct their course and repeatedly re-evaluate and adjust their bearings in response to environmental stimuli such as food or poisons.
As for the other response regulator I mentioned, CheB, what does it do? When CheB is activated by the histidine kinase CheA, it operates as a methylesterase. This means that it actively removes methyl groups from glutamate residues on the receptor’s cytoplasmic surface. Meanwhile, another protein (called CheR) actively adds methyl residues to these same glutamate residues — that is to say, it works as a methyltransferase.
At this point the engineering shows a stroke of genius. If the stimulus is at a high level, there will be a corresponding decline in the level of phosphorylation of the CheA protein — and, as a consequence, of the response regulators CheY and CheB as well. Remember that the role of CheB is to remove methyl groups from glutamate residues on the receptor’s cytoplasmic surface. But now, phosphorylated CheB is not available and so this task is not performed. The degree of methylation of the MCPs will thus be raised. When the MCPs are fully methylated, the cell will swim continuously because the MCPs are no longer responsive to the stimuli.
This entails that the level of phosphorylated CheA and CheB will increase even when the level of attractant remains high, and the cell will commence the process of tumbling. But now, the phosphorylated CheB is able to demethylate the MCPs, and the receptors are again able to respond to the attracting chemical signals. In the case of repellents, the situation is similar — except that it is the least methylated MCPs which respond least while the fully methylated ones respond most. This kind of regulation also means that the bacterium has a memory system for chemical concentrations from the recent past and compares them to its currently receiving signals. It can thus detect whether it is moving towards or away from a chemical stimulus.
Quorum Sensing
The purpose of quorum sensing is essentially to ensure that sufficient cell numbers of a given species are present before initiating a response that requires the population density to be above a certain threshold. A single bacterial cell secreting a toxin into a eukaryotic organism is not likely to do the host any harm and would waste resources. If, however, all of the bacterial cells in a large population co-ordinate the expression of the toxin, the toxin is more likely to have the desired effect.
Each species that employs quorum sensing — which includes most gram-negative bacteria, and also some gram-positive bacteria — synthesizes a tiny signaling molecule (technically called an “autoinducer”), which diffuses freely across the cell’s membrane. Autoinducers are species-specific, which means that each cell of the same species makes the same molecule. This means that the autoinducer is only present in high concentrations inside the cell when there are many cells of the same species nearby. Inside the cell, the autoinducer binds to an activator protein which is specific for that particular molecule and thus signals the bacteria to begin transcription of specific genes.
For example, consider the case of the bioluminescent bacterium, Aliivibrio fischeri (pictured at the top of this article). The light that this species of bacteria emits results from the action of the enzyme, luciferase. An activator protein, called LuxR, is responsible for controlling the lux operons, which are in turn responsible for the transcription of the proteins required for luminescence. These operons are induced when the concentration of the autoinducer specific to Aliivibro fischeri reaches a high enough concentration. This autoinducer is itself synthesized by the enzyme which is encoded by the LuxI gene.
Image credit: Wikimedia commons
Quorum sensing is very widespread, particularly in gram negative bacteria. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, for example, uses such “population sampling” processes to trigger the expression of a significant number of unrelated genes when the population density reaches a certain threshold. These genes subsequently allow the cells to form a biofilm (which increases the pathogenicity of the organism and prevents the penetration of antibiotics). See the figure above on the role of two-component quorum sensing in bacterial biofilm formation
Recurring Design Logic
Here, I have described only a few examples of two-component regulatory systems, of which many more examples could be provided. Across these diverse systems, we see a recurring design logic, despite the fact that these systems are not related by evolutionary descent. This is precisely what we might expect to see if the same intelligent mind was involved in their origins, but is really quite surprising on the postulate of an undirected process of chance and physical necessity
Saturday, 25 January 2025
Friday, 24 January 2025
On why ID is already mainstream
Intelligent Design in Action: Mars Archaeology
Occasionally in conversations with atheists I ask if a space alien landing on Mars and finding one of our rovers would be justified in inferring intelligent design. Reactions vary from dodging the question to changing the subject. But think about it: any space aliens capable of building an interstellar craft would have to be knowledgeable of the laws of physics and the laws of logic. Such beings would possess superlative engineering expertise including, most likely, electronic communications and programming. They would be intimately familiar with the differences between natural causes and intelligent causes.
To reinforce the point, reverse the roles and think of what human astronauts would conclude if in some future day they land on an alien planet and find metal machinery operating for a function, such as moving about on wheels, scraping away dirt on a rock, and moving a camera into position on the rock for a closer look. No one would ascribe such an artifact to natural causes. No one would report back to the base that the device emerged out of the soil and rocks on the planet. The whole SETI enterprise relies on the ability to distinguish intelligent causes from the forces of nature.
Uncluttered by Biology
I like this question because it is not only easy to visualize, but it arrives at the design inference without any knowledge of the designer. It also puts the context on a world (Mars) uncluttered by Earth’s complex biology. It focuses on the distinguishing marks of an intelligent cause against the background of natural forces like wind, erosion, temperature, static electricity, or meteorites. On Earth, atheists will argue that natural selection allowed humans to evolve sociality and technology to improve their chances of survival. Those distractions are removed when considering machinery on a distant planet. It would be a stretch for any intelligent observer — human or otherwise — to conclude that the designers of Curiosity or Perseverance were trying to survive by natural selection by making such devices.
That human artifacts are profoundly “other” than natural phenomena was emphasized in a comment by Justin A. Holcomb and four colleagues in Nature Astronomy last month. Their title, “The emerging archaeological record of Mars,” points out the novelty of this research field. Since 1971, dozens of artifacts containing complex specified information have been distinguishing themselves from natural phenomena on Mars.
Humans first reached Mars in 1971, initiating the record of human activity on the Red Planet. As planetary scientists plan for future planetary protection procedures for Mars, they should also consider the developing archaeological record on one of our nearest planets
In 2012, I addressed archaeology as an instance of Intelligent Design in Action. Prior to the space age, archaeology was restricted to our home planet, except in science fiction (e.g., the mysterious monolith in Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey). Mars archaeology is recent enough for us to know the designers well — many of whom are still living — and to be in possession of documents detailing the designs and purposes of the artifacts. In the distant future this may not be the case.
Mars is not the only “new” archaeological site. Evidence of human-designed machinery can also be found on the Moon, Venus, and Titan. Numerous additional craft are orbiting some planets, and some are escaping the solar system. Mars archaeology is thus a subdomain of space archaeology.
Artifacts and Features
Holcomb’s article distinguishes “artefacts” from “features” as marks of human impact. The latter, though indirect, indicate the tell-tale activity of human minds
From an archaeological perspective, this process is recorded by cultural resources (artefacts) deposited across our Solar System as material objects in orbit, interstellar space and on the surfaces of celestial bodies, including satellites, human-controlled probes, landers, rovers and helicopters. This also includes the non-portableartefacts or ichnological (trace fossil) record of human and rover movement in the form of sampling locations, footprints and trackways, or what archaeologists refer to as features.
Indeed, “features” can provide Earthbound archaeologists with suggestions about the purposes of the human designers, as explained in the 2012 article. Future archaeologists without access to NASA documentation could infer some facts about the intentions built into a Mars rover without even seeing the hardware, just by the evidence of sampling locations and trackways. Even crash sites could provide clues. I’ve wondered if remote sensing at Saturn might someday be able to detect the melted remains of the Cassini spacecraft by finding unexpected elements in the atmosphere. That’s unlikely, given the vast size of Saturn. But if not, it would illustrate that it is far easier to destroy complex specified information than to create it. This is a concern of the authors of this article.
Holcomb and colleagues focus on the need to preserve artifacts documenting important “firsts” in space, such as the Apollo 11 landing site at Tranquility Base. If future missions were careless, some of the sites could be permanently damaged or lost. Space weathering and random impacts will also degrade or obliterate them.
These examples are extraordinary firsts for humankind. As we move forward during the next era of human exploration, we hope that planetary scientists, archaeologists and geologists can work together to ensure sustainable and ethical human colonization, that protects cultural resources in tandem with future space exploration. One way to achieve this goal is to initiate discussions now about the cultural material left behind during humanity’s initial phases of migration into our Solar System. Those discussions could begin by considering and acknowledging the emerging archaeological record on Mars.
Evidence of Human Exceptionalism
Why is the preservation of “cultural material” important to us? Because it is an indicator of human exceptionalism. Some animals are alleged to have evolved sociality and culture for the good of the group. These include whale songs, ape grooming, tool use by crows, honeybee dances, mammal play, and the like. All these, however, can be directly tied to physical needs for food, reproduction, and survival. Elon Musk believes humanity must expand to other locations to survive as a species, but that view was not foremost on the minds of engineers who designed Mars rovers. Humans do not need to write symphonies, create paintings and sculptures, or engineer spacecraft to explore distant planets. Our curiosity drives us to learn. We want to know what another planet is like. No other primate or animal appears to have the desire or power to embark on such fantastic adventures of exploration. And only humans ponder their own origin and destiny.
As of 2022, researchers have estimated that around 22,000 pounds (9,979 kg) of human-discarded objects are on the Martian surface….
Some scientists have referred to this cultural material as ‘space trash’ or ‘galactic litter’, implying that it may have limited scientific value and could cause environmental problems and put future missions at risk. They have raised concerns about the potential effects of chemical and material pollution that these objects may have on celestial bodies and ecosystems. We agree that these concerns warrant further investigation, but we argue that the objects need to be evaluated as important cultural heritage in need of protection because they record the legacy of space exploration by our species
The same sense of value drives archaeologists to carefully sift through artifacts in remote places on Earth. We want to know, understand, and protect the record of explorations and accomplishments by our species. Our hands, big brains, and gift of language set us apart from all other life on our home planet. Many of us would add to that list of exceptional traits an immaterial soul that cares about truth and values. Archaeology, whether here or out in space, is a product of human uniqueness that exemplifies intelligent design: the ability to design methods to detect design and to distinguish intelligent causes from natural causes. Mind matters; that’s why Mars archaeology is something new under the sun in one sense, but as old as Adam in another
Wednesday, 22 January 2025
Monday, 20 January 2025
Sunday, 19 January 2025
Against litigious XIII
Litigious:while it is true that Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom, this does not necessitate that Wisdom is a separate entity or "offspring" in a literal sense. Personification is a poetic device frequently used in Scripture to convey abstract concepts in relatable terms. For example, in Proverbs 9:1, Wisdom is described as building a house and preparing a feast. These actions are not meant to be taken literally; they emphasize Wisdom's practical role in God's creation and guidance. Similarly, the description of Wisdom as "acquired" or "brought forth" does not imply a biological or temporal origin but rather God's eternal possession and expression of Wisdom.
Myself:this is what I mean there is NO Scriptural precedent at all for birth language being used of JEHOVAH to refer to anything eternal we know that cana is used of JEHOVAH With reference to his "acquisition" of the heavens and the earth no one argues that this must therefore mean the heavens and the earth must therefore be eternal. Every single time birth language is used of JEHOVAH It is with regard to bringing some thing into being that did not previously exist without exception, therefore referring to anything eternal as JEHOVAH'S offspring would flout the entirety of scriptural precedent JEHOVAH is not the Father of anything or anyone eternal. I base this on the ENTIRETY of scriptural precedent we note that wisdom was acquired as the beginning of JEHOVAH'S Work, by definition whatever has a beginning is not eternal
Litigious:While the BDB acknowledges that qanah *can* mean "to create" in some contexts, it does not assert that this is the only or even the most accurate meaning in Proverbs 8:22. The primary meaning of qanah in Hebrew is "to acquire" or "to possess," as seen in Genesis 14:19 and other passages. The interpretation of qanah in Proverbs 8:22 must consider the broader context of the chapter, which portrays Wisdom as eternal and integral to God's nature. Translating qanah as "create" imposes a theological bias that is not inherently present in the text.
Myself:Here is the BDB's words copied and pasted by myself"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.)."
It quite literally gives originating or creating as the most likely meaning at Proverbs ch.8:22 not merely a possibility. The birth language is the likely reason for that. As for your claim that create us a biased, either rendering would present a bias so I'm not sure about what you are trying to say here.
We note that both the translators of the NIV and the BDBs authors are trinitarians.
Litigious:The use of "offspring" language in Proverbs 8 is metaphorical and poetic. The Hebrew word chuwl (translated as "brought forth" in verses 24–25) conveys the idea of birth or emergence but does not necessitate a literal creation event. Proverbs 8:23 explicitly states that Wisdom was established "from everlasting," which aligns more closely with the interpretation of Wisdom as eternal and uncreated. The depiction of Wisdom as "brought forth" emphasizes its intimate relationship with God and its active role in creation, not its origin as a created being.
Olam need not mean everlasting but merely what is hidden from human estimation. You have to ignore the totality of scriptural precedent to deem something emergent as eternal there is no eternal emergence in scripture,the totality of precedent tells us that that all of JEHOVAH'S "offspring" are finite. As logic would demand infinite and emergent are mutually exclusive qualities.
See psalm ch.90:2 there is always an eternity of time passing before whatever JEHOVAH Brings forth ,gives birth to,begets I the weight of the entirety of scriptural precedent behind my position and you have extra biblical ,pagan really philosophical speculation backing up your position. I know that you don't accord the Bible the same authority I do and that is going to continue to be a problem going forward.
Litigious:translation choices of the NIV, or any translation for that matter, do not serve as definitive proof of a particular interpretation. Genesis 14:19 uses qanah to describe God as the "Possessor of heaven and earth," which aligns with the primary meaning of qanah as "to acquire" or "to possess." Translating qanah as "create" in this context is less accurate because the focus of the passage is on God's sovereignty and ownership, not the act of creation. Furthermore, the consistency of qanah's meaning across other biblical passages strongly favors "possess" or "acquire" rather than "create."
Myself:As we have seen the BDB and the translators of the septuagint agree with the translators of the NIV" Who likely have forgotten more than either of us would ever know on the subject biblical Hebrew and its accurate rendering into English,the birth language used at both Proverbs ch.8 and Psalm 139 is probably why the highly qualified author's of the BDB ,the Septuagint, and the NIV rendered cana as create here in view of the universal practice of the bible writer's of using birth language to refer to JEHOVAH'S Creative activity.
Litigious:the use of chuwl in verses 24–25 does not imply a temporal creation event. Instead, it is part of the poetic imagery used to personify Wisdom. The phrase "brought forth" emphasizes Wisdom's integral role in God's creative activity, not its origin as a created being. Additionally, the description of Wisdom as existing "from everlasting" (verse 23) underscores its eternal nature, which is incompatible with the idea of Wisdom being created at a specific point in time.
Your argument by assertion and circular logic continues to fail remember you are not dealing with an audience that accepts you as any kind of authority, JEHOVAH'S eternal Wisdom was never brought forth . Olam need not mean eternity only beyond human estimation, there is scriptural precedent for considering olam as inestimably ancient there is no scriptural precedent for any eternal emergence or begetting.
See Exodus ch.21:6 for instance do you want to take olam as forever here as well.
Litigious:is true that some early Church Fathers, including Origen, interpreted Wisdom in Proverbs 8 as a reference to Christ. However, their understanding of Christ as the Logos (Word) was rooted in the belief that Christ is eternal and uncreated, fully divine and consubstantial with the Father. Origen himself affirmed the eternal generation of the Son, which is distinct from the concept of creation. To equate Christ, as divine Wisdom, with a created being misrepresents both the intent of the Church Fathers and the broader biblical witness.
My main point here was that a) Wisdom is distinct person not an abstraction, b) Wisdom was generated by JEHOVAH. With all due respect to Origen the scriptures do not speak of any eternal generation, and we know that a begetting in time in no way disqualified Christ from being whatever he needs to be to serve as our intercessor.
Acts ch.13:33NIV"he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
“ ‘You are my son;
TODAY I have become your father.’ "
Friday, 17 January 2025
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
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"
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
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
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"
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
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
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"
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
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.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)