More on why the expectation of junk DNA is based on junk science.

 

Rocking settled science's boat?

 

James White vs. Dale Tuggy post game review.

 

Isaiah 9:6 demystified.

   Find article here

 

 

Isa. 9:6

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
 
All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ.  Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is  the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses.  (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense.  In other words, Christ is "a mighty god" in the same sense that God's angels were called "gods" and the judges of Israel were called "gods" by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called "a god" by Jehovah himself.  This is the interpretation of Is. 9:6 by the WT Society at this time (1986).

Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers.  Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God.  (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, "the president" would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with "The President" [of the USA].)
  
The word "god" as understood by those who used that term simply meant a "mighty one" - see Young's Concordance.  In fact the word "Mighty" as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible).  It is interesting that the  ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: "and his [the Messiah's] name is called the Angel [aggeloV, messenger] of Great Counsel."   

The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as "The Angel of mighty counsel" - "Dialogue With Trypho," ch. LXXVI.

So, just as "Lord" was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could "god" be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a "mighty person."  Of course only one person could be called the "Most High God," or the "Only True God," or the "Almighty God"!  [See the sidebar: "God and gods"]

In the same way, "Eternal Father" could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others.  (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.)  This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - Jehovah.

At any rate, even trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son.  They do not say the Son is the Father.  They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally "God"!

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take "Eternal Father" in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father,   we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. `Mighty God') in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.

In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as "God/god" as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of "Mighty God," Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as "a divine hero;" Byington has "Divine Champion;" The New English Bible has "In Battle Godlike;" The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it "God-Hero;" and the REB says "Mighty Hero."  Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it "mighty hero" - p. 45, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:



"In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his `splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called `god' as a title of honor [cf.  Isa 9:6]."  (Bracketed information included in original footnote.  Emphasis is mine)
    
In addition, Rotherham has rendered "Eternal Father" as "father of progress," and the New English Bible translates it: "father of a wide realm."

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.

But, some may ask, if ‘a mighty god’ were intended in this name, why is “God” given a capital ‘G’ in most translations of this name?

The answer is that in English translations of names we often find the major words within a name (or title) are capitalized. This is similar to the way book titles, names of buildings, ships, etc. are written in English. ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ ‘The World Trade Center,’ ‘The Empire State Building,’ ‘Allure of the Seas’ (cruise ship), etc., are modern examples.

........................
 
And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today.  The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.



For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
 
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King."  Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King."  Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" -  p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.  And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” - http://www.kveller.com/jewish_names/display.php?n=Elimelech&k=840 
And, “God is my King.” - http://www.jhom.com/calendar/sivan/symbolism.htm .


I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”


  Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference!  - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] is Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB;  JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; and  ASV (footnote).  Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness"! - [bracketed information is mine].

(Unfortunately for "Jesus is Jehovah" advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16.)


But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.


Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”

And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.


Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:


"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."
 
Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."
   
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[a]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[b] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."
 
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism.  Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a  parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means  [a]"quick to the plunder;   [b] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]"For unto us a child is born;  [b] unto us a son is given."  It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

On the naturalist bona fides (or lack thereof) of the proposed extended extended synthesis.

 Is Evolution’s “Third Way” Natural? (And Are We Allowed to Reference It?) 

Daniel Witt

As the body of evidence against the Darwinian model has grown ever larger, many scientists have started peeling off to look for other options. A whole community of scientific scholars are seeking a “third way” to explain life, besides the unacceptable options of (a) benighted creationism or (b) the now-defunct neo-Darwinian synthesis. University of Chicago molecular biologist James Shapiro, engineer Raju Pookottil, and Oxford physiologist Denis Noble have even launched The Third Way website to aggregate the works of sympathetic scientists.

The homepage of website contains this interesting proclamation: 

It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else. 

Clear enough. “Supernatural intervention” is out of the question for Third Way evolutionary biologist. 

Or is it? I wonder how closely the Third Way team has paid attention to the views of their contributors. 

"Our Reality Emanates from Them”

Take Andreas Wagner, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Zürich. As a true third-way-er, Wagner is no friend of creationism or ID, but he admits that the mechanism of neo-Darwinism doesn’t explain how new innovations could emerge. So he has written his own book to explain how evolution really works, The Arrival of the Fittest. Wagner believes that beneficial mutations are chosen from a sort of “library” of theoretical possibilities, with many possible mutations leading to each type of adaptation, scattered all throughout the library. This supposedly allows lifeforms to evolve far more quickly than they would otherwise. 

So far, so good. No “supernatural intervention” here. But look what Wagner has to say about this library idea, from an interview:  

Think about this library that I mentioned… This library’s essentially a mathematical concept. And we could say it’s a Platonic concept in the sense that it exists in an abstract space of our minds — or somewhere out there, we are not quite sure where. And so the question arises… abstract mathematical concepts, are they real in some sense, in some general sense, or are they just figments of our imagination? And I think that’s a very interesting question. You know, I don’t have a final answer to that question, but I’m leaning towards the answer that Plato has given — namely, that they are actuallyrealer than our reality, that our reality emanates, if you will, from them.

Platonic forms, “somewhere out there,” “realer than our reality” … that sounds pretty supernatural to me. “Our reality emanates from them” is practically the definition of “supernatural.” If not, what is the distinction between “supernatural” and “natural”? If we were to find something truly “supernatural,” what would it be like? 

Of course, you could come up with a definition of “natural” that includes these Platonic forms. The truth is, naturalism is infinitely adaptable: since it is defined as the belief that only the “natural” exists, it can always be preserved by simply broadening the membership of “natural,” forever. If something, once dismissed as “supernatural,” turns out to be real, it can be redefined as “natural.” So even if science were to discover, say, an immaterial human soul, naturalists could just call it a “quantum entity” or something, and go on with business as usual. The same goes for leprechauns, love, Narnia, or God himself. Anything supernatural that might be discovered — up to and above an entirely different universe or plane of being — can simply be redubbed “part of nature.” 

The reasoning is circular and tautological: Naturalism asserts that the natural is all that exists, and all that exists is defined as “natural.” 

This by itself wouldn’t be such a terrible thing. If calling things “natural” makes people feel better, why not let them? The trouble is that some scientists — such as those at The Third Way — try to treat this as an actual distinction, not a mere matter of definition. And then everything undesirable is excluded on the basis of being “supernatural.”

Exploiting Hemple’s Dilemma 

They get away with this by using a clever (though no doubt unconscious) equivocation. You see, “naturalism” in this context has two possible interpretations. One is obviously false, and the other is trivial. 

It could mean that natural sciences must only study things that have already been discovered by the natural sciences. In that case, science is going to be sadly limited. Or, it could mean that anything the natural sciences do in fact discover will be defined as “natural,” since natural sciences were able to discover it. That is perfectly fine, though rather uninteresting. (This problem, first proposed by the philosopher Carl Hemple, is called Hemple’s Dilemma.)

Here’s where naturalists like those at The Third Way get tricky: when they say that science must be methodologically naturalist, it isn’t clear which version of the thesis they are referring to. And rather than defining terms, they exploit the ambiguity to equivocate.

First, they maintain that science can only study natural entities — not supernatural entities. They are here using the weaker definition of naturalism: whatever science discovers is natural by definition. 

But then they go on to say that God cannot be investigated by science, because God is supernatural, not natural. Here they are using the stronger definition: that only entities that are already know to be part of naturecan be hypothesized.

No one could defend this stronger definition, but no one has to. It’s slipped in, unnoticed, by scholars who are unwilling to consider evidence for entities they find unappealing. 

Well, they can do that if they want. We can’t stop them. But as they uncover evidence that truly implies design in life — “supernatural” or otherwise — we will continue (with sincerest respect) to reference it. 

Complexity all the way down?

 

More on why ancient humans were Just as human.

 Fossil Friday: Stone Huts, Homo habilis, and Gutsick Gibbon

Günter Bechly

This Fossil Friday will be a bit different and will show you how an aspiring young anthropologist came to agree that a young earth creationist video made a valid point against human evolution. Here is the truly remarkable story.

A PhD student of biological anthropology named Erika runs one of the more popular anti-creationist YouTube channels under her pseudonym Gutsick Gibbon. Apparently, she feels she has to hide her real identity behind a pseudonym, because it is so “dangerous” to publicly defend the mainstream consensus in academia and mock dissenters, who risked or even sacrifized their careers by speaking out. Nevertheless, I had a quite civil and long debate with her, which you can watch online if you have the enthusiasm for almost 3.5 hours of talking about “The Fossil Record, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.” I thought that after this conversation it might be worthwhile to stay in touch and so I emailed her (June 2 and 3, 2021) with some detailed information she had asked for in our talk concerning anti-freeze proteins and mutation rates in whales. Unfortunately she never responded to my mails.

Anyway, I recently stumbled upon a new video from her on atheist Aron Ra’s YouTube channel, which is part of a series of rebuttal videos against the documentary movie Genesis Impact that you can watch for free on YouTube as well. The latter was produced by an American Young Earth creationist organization named Genesis Apologetics. Since I am not a proponent of this view at all, and am on record as subscribing to an Old Earth and common descent, I might be an unlikely candidate to defend this movie against attacks. However, when I watched, I found it quite well done and well researched, certainly not without errors but raising many valid point against the mainstream view on human evolution. On the other hand, the reaction video “Rebutting Genesis Impact 5 — Homo habilis,” by Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon, was not just beyond awful and factually bonkers, but also exhibited a very off-putting arrogance that backfires badly. Let’s have a look at the background information first.

The Background Information

The Genesis Impact movie made the following argument against Homo habilis as a transitional form between ape-like australopithecines and modern humans (time code 36:55-39:42):

In the lowest archaeological beds of the Olduvai Gorge site in Kenya, where the type fossils of the ancient hominin Homo habilis were discovered, the scientists also found a 12-foot circular stone hut foundation made of lava rocks, and this structure had 6 heaps of stone spaced 2-2.5 feet apart for inserting support poles. They described the stone circle as having a striking similarity to the shelters made by present day nomads in the area today. The movie also emphasizes the point that outside the hut area 348 bones of 8 species of slaughtered animals were found but only 11 small fragments and teeth inside the hut area. Thus, 97% of the animal bones were found outside the hut foundations. Likewise, 96% (48 of 50 pieces) of the by-product flakes and chips from stone tool production (called debitage) were found outside the hut foundations.

The movie then concludes that this evidence suggests modern humans lived here and not apes or ape-men. The movie reports that this aligns with the opinion of Mary Leakey, the leading paleoexpert for this locality, who argued that the huts were man-made artificial structures because of the distribution of stones in the stone circle and the disproportionate distribution of animal bones and stone tool flakes inside and outside the stone circle, including a two foot buffer zone around the circle. Leakey said that the structure looked very much like the stone hut foundations people in the same area built today. The movie even shows a slide with a photo of such a hut labeled “Leakey 1979 Plate 3” as its source. Keep this in mind, as it will be important later on.

The argument is also elaborated with more background information on the movie’s accompanying webpage on Homo habilis by Genesis Apologetics, which provides further sources to Leakey (1971 [sic should be 1972], 1979). It also makes clear that “The Stone Circle was found at DK IA, Level 3, Lower Bed I, and several Homo habilis bones were found above this structure.”

Embarrassingly Dumb

In their embarrassingly dumb rebuttal video, Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon spend large parts of their 1.5 hour time on stuff that has nothing at all to do with the Genesis Impact movie, such as the straw man argument “If we came from monkeys, why are their still monkeys?”, which is nowhere found in the movie, or stuff about the origin of bird feathers, which is totally unrelated to the movie, as well as boring stereotypical rants about how stupid religious believers are and how wonderful enlightened scientists are. When they address the movie they either avoid the main points or even implicitly confirm them, but consider them irrelevant. The only substantial critique in the video that allegedly debunks a central argument concerns the issue of the stone circle (time code 45:52-54:17). Gutsick Gibbon, who was invited by Aron Ra as an expert on human origins, argues that this is all creationist nonsense and false information, based on misunderstanding real science and either deliberate lies or at least careless confusion of two different archaeological sites in Kenya: one the Early Pleistocene site of Olduvai Gorge where Homo habilis was found in the 1960s, and the other the Iron Age site of Hyrax Hill, where stone huts were found in the 1930s.

Why I Am Bothering

The reason I decided to waste my time in responding to the total garbage video by Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon is that it implicitly also attacks me. This is because I had basically made the same point about the stone huts in a Fossil Friday article last summer (Bechly 2023a), which also argues that we now know, that more modern Homo erectus was a contemporary of Homo habilis and the latter rather an australopithecine, which was not a “handy man” but more likely the bushmeat game of real human hunters, who built the stone huts and stone tools.

So, is this true? Did Genesis Impact and I get the facts right, or is Gutsick Gibbon right with her assumed debunking of the stone hut argument? Well, you don’t even need to dive deep into the technical literature, which would of course drive this point home beyond any doubt, such as the excavation reports by Leakey (1972) or the standard textbook on paleoanthropology (Biagi 2015), or various articles (e.g., Potts 1984, Straus 1989).

It would have been fully sufficient to google to find some brief blog posts (e.g., Rensberger 2007) about the discovery or even simply check Wikipedia, which explicitly affirms the claim with sources:

In 1962, a 366 cm × 427 cm × 30 cm (12 ft × 14 ft × 1 ft) circle made with volcanic rocks was discovered in Olduvai Gorge. At 61–76 cm (2–2.5 ft) intervals, rocks were piled up to 15–23 cm (6–9 in) high. Mary Leakey suggested the rock piles were used to support poles stuck into the ground, possibly to support a windbreak or a rough hut. Some modern-day nomadic tribes build similar low-lying rock walls to build temporary shelters upon, bending upright branches as poles and using grasses or animal hide as a screen.[58] Dating to 1.75 mya, it is attributed to some early Homo, and is the oldest-claimed evidence of architecture.[59]

The Wikipedia article on the Olduvai Gorge locality even specifies that it was the older Bed I dated to 1.75-1.9 million years, where the stone circle was found by Leakey, and gives Leakey (1979: 11-17, 40) as source. Don’t trust Wikipedia? You shouldn’t indeed. But maybe you’d rather trust the prestigious Encyclopaedia Britannica, which mentions in its article on the Oldowan industry that “stones arranged in a circle found in Bed I at Olduvai Gorge may have served as weights to hold down the edges of a windbreak used by early hominids.”

This archaeological fact has also made it into many books, such as the book by Tim Ingold, professor on social anthropology at the University of Aberdeen, who wrote (Ingold 2000: 184):

It is in this light that we can understand the extraordinary significance that has been attached to the so-called ‘stone circle’ discovered at the famous site of Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, and dated to some 1.75 million years ago (Figure 10.7). In her interpretation of the circle, Mary Leakey writes that in its general appearance, it ‘resembles temporary structures often made by present-day nomadic peoples who build a low stone wall round their dwellings to serve either as a windbreak or as a base to support upright branches which are bent over and covered with either skins or grass’ (1971: 24). A photograph of such a dwelling, from the Okombambi people of Southwest Africa, is provided to substantiate the comparison.

In the accompanying figure 10.7 it is even more precisely specified as “The ‘stone circle’ from Bed I of Olduvai Gorge.” It is the same figure from Mary Leakey’s (1971/1972) excavation report that was shown in the movie, and that clearly features the stone circle as well as the various found animal bones with their determinations. This association of the bones and the circle is an important fact that Gutsick Gibbon did not grasp and boldly shrugs off in her video response as made-up nonsense.

I suggest it would not have been too much to ask from a PhD student to at least google or check an encyclopedia, before slandering others for incompetence or even accusing them of lying by alleged spreading of false information. Obviously, our anonymous Erika still has to learn a lot about paleoanthropology before she is ready for a PhD in this field, starting with basics like properly researching sources. However, if you are so careless in your research, and obviously guided by prejudice and bias, then maybe science is not really your thing.

But what about this other iron age site? Indeed, Leakey et al. (1943) had also described iron age huts from a different site in Kenya called Hyrax Hill thirty years before the discoveries of the stone circle at the Homo habilis site of Olduvai Gorge. The two have nothing to do with each other, and it is Gutsick Gibbon who is confusing the two and is ignorant about the discovery at Olduvai Gorge, even though this was clearly explained in elaborate detail in the reviewed movie with all sources provided.

Cheeky Incompetence

To document the stunning amount of cheeky incompetence and also a very surprising admission, I here provide the transcripts (with time code) from the relevant parts of the video by Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon together with my comments, but you really should watch the video passages afterwards to have a good laugh:

41:51-41:49: “They don’t look at the skulls. They obfuscate and talk about these Stone huts. That again we’re going to get to. So it’s remarkably frustrating.”

Yes, it is remarkably frustrating. How you are going to get the point of the stone huts wrong?

After showing a snippet of the movie, which poses the question of whether the stone tools were used by or on Homo habilis, Gutsick Gibbon commented:

46:19-46:59: “Okay, so first and foremost how do we know if the stone tools are being used on something or by something. When the other remains at the site have stone tool cut marks on them and you don’t find any on the the individuals proposed to have used them. So, when you find Homo habilis with stone tools what do you do? You look at Homo habilis, does it have any cut marks on it? No! Do the other animals at the site have cut marks on them? Yes! That means that the only guy capable of using tools found at the site was probably using the stone tools on the organisms that do have cut marks on them, processing them, butchering them, etc. That is like the easiest kind of association you can make.”

Fair enough, but this ignores three important points:

Many more animal bones have been found at this locality than Homo habilis bones. So, when only a fraction of all bones has preserved cut marks, then it is statistically much more likely to find animal bones with cut marks.

Cut marks are mostly found on long bones, but only few long bones of Homo habilis have been found.

Meanwhile, hominin long bones with cut marks from this time and region have indeed be identified at the Homo habilis locality of Koobi Fora in Kenya (Pobiner et al. 2023). I reported about this in another Fossil Friday article (Bechly 2023b). This omission would arguably be excusable, as the publication of the new study overlaps with the time of the making of Aron Ra’s video.

After another snippet from the movie that talks about the 12-foot circular hut foundation nearby in the same archaeological bed, which was described as having a striking similarity to the shelters made by present-day nomadic people in the same area today, Gutsick Gibbon responds:

47:15-47:40: “You’ll notice that what they say is a circular hut nearby. So, we’re talking about the distance between Olduvai Gorge and Hyrax Hill. Hyrax Hill is where they find these Stone Huts. That’s everything that I could find on them, is that all of these these stone huts found by Mary Leakey, who they later say is the one who did the work on these circular structures, that she did her work at Hyrax Hill. That’s where they’re from.”

Nope, that’s not remotely where they are from. As already mentioned, the stone circle was clearly described from Bed 1 at Olduvai Gorge, and Gutsick Gibbon is confusing this with something totally different, because she did not bother to look at the sources provided in the movie and its accompanying website, nor did she bother to just watch the movie and listen to the argument more carefully.

Aron Ra then interrupts to proclaim triumphantly:

00:47:44-00:48:11: “If it’s a different location, and it’s a different elevation, stratigraphically, then it’s not the same thing. And if the creationists are perfectly fine with saying that it is the same thing because it suits their purpose, but if a scientist were to say that they were the same thing that would be fraudulent, why is it only a lie if the scientists do it? Why is it never a lie when the creationists do it.”

Well, because this is total rubbish and a red herring. The movie is not talking about two different localities. It’s just two clueless YouTubers making up stuff because they only hear what they want to hear and are unable to research the facts.

Gutsick Gibbon responded with a real howler:

00:48:11-00:49:22: “Well. I want to hit you with the punch line here Aron, because if you’ll remember in the last video what they said was that — [silly giggling] — what they said was that Australopithecus can’t be associated with Laetoli footprints because Lucy is too far away from the Laetoli footprints and they’re too far from each other. Never mind the fact that Australopithecus is not found just at the site with Lucy, it’s found as a species all over the place and very near the Laetoli footprints, so like that’s an aside. But their argument is that they’re too far from each other, that’s why they can’t be associated. You want to know how far away Hyrax Hill is where this stone structure is from the OH7 type specimen? It’s an eight-hour drive — [both are laughing] — it’s an eight hour drive time. It’s an eight hour drive I just pulled it up, it’s eight hours and five minutes, it is 448.6 kilometres away. Nearby? Nearby? You’ve got to be kidding me. They just throw it in there like as a little aside thing no one will notice. I always notice because I always check, because they’re always conning you, every single time.”

Oh boy. Yes, Hyrax Hill is an eight hour drive away, because you looked at the wrong locality! And Gutsick Gibbon, a PhD student in anthropology, says she is always noticing because she always checks. This is hilarious! The evidence that this is from Olduvai Gorge was plain to see in the slides in the movie. They even quoted Leakey 1979 as a reference, not Leakey 1943. They are not talking about an iron age site that was discovered 30 years earlier by Leakey at Hyrax Hill. This is shockingly embarrassing. The university system definitely has failed these guys.

Next, they show another snippet from the movie, which makes the important point that the stone circles were found in a layer beneath the bones of the Homo habilis type specimen, which suggests that more modern humans were on the scene, building huts and working with tools even before Homo habilis showed up. I totally agree and made the same point in my earlier articles (Bechly 2023a, 2023b). Gutsick Gibbon responds with more rubbish:

00:49:44-00:50:42: “Now here’s the important bit. You know, those stone circles, they were initially, um, excavated by Mary Leakey in the 1930s, as I alluded to earlier. Now, wouldn’t you know it work was done later on these stone circles, um, by I think it’s Sutton at al. in 1987. Sutton at al. in 1987, um yeah, he radiocarbon-dated some of the charcoal found at this site. They’re 200 years old. They’re from the Iron Age Stone. The circles are from the Iron Age, which is why I thought to myself, it’s quite strange you know, that they’re saying, oh you know, these stone circles they’re found in a layer below Homo habilis nearby, eight and a half hours away. Nearby, huh? Same layer, huh? [You really have to watch the video to experience the combination of ignorance and arrogance]. I couldn’t find anything on these things being in the same layer or even being close to each other, stratigraphically speaking, which makes sense given they’re from the Iron Age, right? By radiometric dating they’re found to be in the Iron Age!”

Of course, you could not find anything, because checking Wikipedia, not to speak of the primary sources, was too much work for a PhD student. The stone circle in the movie was discovered by Mary Leakey in 1962 at Olduvai Gorge, not in the 1930s at Hyrax Hill. Nobody denies that the latter locality is from the Iron Age, and the movie does not talk about it.

Gutsick Gibbon then goes on (00:50:42-00:50:18) and makes another irrelevant point, that even young earth creationists accept radiometric dating as a relative dating in terms of older and younger, so that even internally the argument that the stone circle is older than Homo habilis would not work. Again, irrelevant because it is a different site, which is not Iron Age and not younger but older than the Homo habilis bones. So, the argument is perfectly valid and supported by the evidence, which she later will admit.

A Gem of Wisdom

Aron Ra interrupts for a gem of his wisdom:

51:33-51:57: “… what generally happens, which usually happens these kind of things is you’re looking for stuff on the surface so whatever has eroded on the surface so there’s different layers of erosion and so some group go to an area where there’s a low uh a low area so so it’s going to be more eroded and then they put circle stones in a circle and build a fire 200 years ago, and that’s what they’re talking about by a lower level.”

No, they don’t. They talk about a lower level because the stone circle at Olduvai Gorge was found in the lowest archaeological Bed 1, dated to 1.75-1.9 million years by Mary Leakey (1979) in her book that is even shown as a reference in the movie, for heaven’s sake.

Gutsick Gibbon unbelievably agrees with Aron Ra’s nonsensical gibberish:

51:58-52:50: “That is my understanding because I can’t find anything in Mary Leakey’s initial publication in the 1930s that’s saying, like she doesn’t even talk about habilis, right? Like I don’t understand where the connection was drawn. I think you’re right. My understanding is that they were like they’re both on the surface therefore same layer, um. But again, I mean this is what they do, they’re taking publications from the 1930s that are very difficult for the average person to track down. If I didn’t have my university association, I couldn’t get a hold of it, right? Like, their whole point is that you can’t double check them, um, but Sutton goes in depth in 1987 of the dating of these circles. They’re not associated with Homo habilis, not even close, not even close, not even close temporally, and not even close geographically. So, like this is just it’s just nonsense again.”

Not Nonsense but a Fact

Nope, it’s not nonsense but a fact that the stone circle was found close temporally and geographically to Homo habilis. Actually, at the very same place and in the same archaeological bed as the holotype OH7, even a bit below its layers. And you don’t need a university association to track down obscure publications from the 1930s. Everybody can google the facts in a few seconds. What a joke! And it is made worse by their mean-spirited insinuations. Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon definitely owe a sincere apology to the makers of the Genesis Impact movie and an apology to their own audience that has been misinformed and mislead by their video. I won’t hold my breath, though.

Next, they play another snippet from the movie, where the portrayed scientist admits that the stone hut foundations beneath the Homo habilis bones represent a very good point.

Gutsick Gibbon actually agrees and this is the most important passage in the whole video:

53:21-54:17: “This is, this is incredibly sneaky, right, what they’ve done here. Because, if that was true, if you could actually show, uh, categorically, constructed stone monuments as being earlier than any finding of Homo habilis, that would be a very interesting point to make. That would be a good point in the sense that it would merit further investigation, but that’s not what they found. It’s simply not. It’s like brutally untrue, you see what I mean? So, like yeah, it categorically is a good point just like it would be a good point if we found a rabbit side by side with a trilobite, right? Like that would be a good point, except that’s never happened. It’s not even close, right? Like it it’s just a lie, right? Like I mean, there’s not much else to say except like, you yeah, it’d be a good point in fantasy world, right?”

Wow, we caught you now and will not let you get away with this unnoticed and will disclose and preserve it for posterity. Anthropologist Gutsick Gibbon just explicitly and unequivocally admitted that such stone circles would be a good point, an interesting and valid argument, if it were true! Since it is demonstrably true and not fantasy or a lie, it will be interesting to watch how Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon will try to whitewash this, or move the goalpost, or more likely cover up their incompetence and especially their dangerous admission.

Now, add to their complete blunder on the science, the sneering mockery about the “stupid creationists,” the scornful laughter about their assumed ignorance, and the arrogant, condescending, and patronizing style. This simply cried out to be exposed by me. Sorry Gutsick Gibbon, but these creationists got it right and you proved to be clueless about your own field and a sloppy researcher as well. Next time, better be a bit more humble and charitable, and do your homework. Actually, Aron Ra has studied paleontology at the University of Texas himself and has a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from Arizona State University, so he is as culpable for this massive blunder as is Gutsick Gibbon. But given his own obvious incompetence in spite of his academic training, Aron Ra should maybe look for some real experts for his next rebuttal video instead of giving a platform to overconfident students.

Not Known for Accuracy

Aron Ra is of course not exactly known for sharing accurate information, including about Christianity. Here is what academic historiographer Tim O’Neill (2019) had to say about him:

Unfortunately the New Atheist activist who calls himself “Aron Ra” is all too typical of this kind of polemicist — he does not let his profound ignorance of history stop him from pontificating about it. In a recent debate he put this on full display, with a remarkable burst of pseudo-historical gibberish proclaimed with supreme confidence and smug self-assurance. Yet virtually everything he said was wrong.

But surely, O’Neill is just a biased fundamentalist Christian, no? No, he is an “atheist, sceptic and rationalist who is a subscribing member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of the Australian Skeptics” (see here).

Here is a litmus test for Aron Ra’: In the seventh and final episode of his YouTube video series against the Genesis Impact movie, he presented a public challenge (time code 1:05:43-1:06:25, see here):

So, um, if you, if you are a fan, if you’re a creationist and you watched this long ass series that I’ve made. Show me something, anything they said in this whole series that is an actual fact, that we can both show is actually true, that hasn’t already been disproved and refuted, but is an actual fact, that is supportive of their position, that hasn’t already been shown to be a lie. And I don’t think that any, even creationists, watching this, I don’t think they’re going to, they’re going to respond to that, because they already know and they already don’t care. They want to believe what they want to believe. They don’t care what the truth is.

Really? Now, let’s see if Aron Ra, a self-declared Satanist (no kidding, see here), cares what the truth is, or if he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. Will he have the guts to admit defeat? Again, I won’t hold my breath.

Unfortunately, poorly researched and highly biased content, mixing factoids with outright falsehoods, more motivated by a dogmatic world view than by any interest in scientific truth, is symptomatic for the new generation of atheist and materialist hardcore Darwinist YouTubers such as Aron Ra, Gutsick Gibbon, Jackson Wheat, Dapper Dinosaur, or Professor Dave and their deplorable ilk. Yeah, I admit it, this case of ignorant chutzpah really steamed me, so enough ranting for today. Fortunately, you have Evolution News and other media that bring you real science and debunk the debunkers.

References

• Bechly G 2023a. Fossil Friday: To Be or Not to Be Homo. Evolution News June 23, 2023. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/06/fossil-friday-to-be-or-not-to-be-homo/
• Bechly G 2023b. Fossil Friday: Another Prediction Vindicated. Evolution News July 28, 2023. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/07/fossil-friday-another-prediction-vindicated/
• Biagi P 2015. Modeling the Past: The Paleoethnological Approach. pp. 817–843 in: Henke W & Tattersall I (eds). Handbook of Paleoanthropology. Springer, Berlin (DE), xliii+2624 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39979-4_24
• Ingold T 2000. Building, dwelling, living: how animals and people make themselves at home in the world. pp. 172–188 in: The Perception of the Environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London (UK) and New York (NY), xiv+465 pp. [Google Books]
• Leakey MD 1971/1972. Olduvai Gorge: Volume 3, Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-1963. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), xix+306 pp.
• Leakey MD 1979. Olduvai Gorge: My Search for Early Man. Collins, London (UK), 187 pp.
• Leakey MD, Leakey LSB, Game PM & Goodwin AJH 1943. Report on the Excavations at Hyrax Hill, Nakuru, Kenya Colony, 1937–1938. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 30(4), 271–409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00359194309519847
• O’Neill T 2019. “Aron Ra” gets everything wrong. History for Atheists August 18, 2019. https://historyforatheists.com/2019/08/aron-ra-gets-everything-wrong/
• Pobiner B, Pante M & Keevil T 2023. Early Pleistocene cut marked hominin fossil from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Scientific Reports 13:9896, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35702-7
• Potts R 1984. Home Bases and Early Hominids. American Scientist 72(4), 338–347. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27852757
• Rensberger B 2007. Oldest Stone Circle. Waking Up On Turtle Island April 7, 2007. http://wakinguponturtleisland.blogspot.com/2007/04/oldest-stone-circle.html

Cloud wars are coming?

 

Michael Behe holds court.

 Michael Behe: A Mousetrap for Darwin

Evolution News

On a classic episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson interviews biochemist Michael Behe about his book A Mousetrap for Darwin. In this episode, Behe explains that he was spurred to build this collection of essays by a review in the journal Science claiming he had never answered his critics on key points. That annoyed Behe, because he had, multiple times. A Mousetrap for Darwin compiles more than a hundred of his responses, some of them from difficult-to-access places. The book also contains fresh material from Dr. Behe, including some lively behind-the-scenes details about his interactions with colleagues and critics. 

In this episode, the Lehigh University biochemist answers misconceptions about irreducible complexity, responds to the claim that “molecular machines” is a misnomer, relates the surprising confessions some of his fellow biologists have made outside the spotlight about evolutionary theory, and offers his appraisal of why scientists in general don’t know what’s going on with studies in evolution or intelligent design. Behe remains optimistic, though. “You can’t deny the data forever,” he says. Download the podcast or listen to it here

New testament theology is clearly trinitarian?

 

Nuclear fusion to the rescue?

 

Never mind the origin of life,the origin of proteins is breaking Darwin?

 

Darwinism cancels naturalism?

 

On the fossil record's antiDarwinian bias.

 

The fossil record has an antiDarwinian bias? Pros and Cons

 

James Tour and Stephen Meyer quizz the sphinx

 

Matthew28:19 demystified.

 Find article here

 

Mt. 28:19 "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit."

 

 

The fact that "name" is singular at Matt. 28:19 is only further proof that "authority" or "power" was meant and not a personal name. If more than one person is involved, then the plural "names" would be used (compare Rev. 21:12). Even trinitarians admit that their God is composed of 3 separate persons. And each one of those "persons" has his own personal name (except, as we have seen, the holy spirit really does not)! Therefore, if personal names were intended here for these three different "persons," the plural "names" would have been used in this scripture.

Since it clearly means "in recognition of the power, or authority of," it is perfectly correct to use "name" in the singular. In fact, it must be used that way. We even recognize this in our own language today. We say, for example, "I did it in the name [singular] of love, humanity, and justice."

There is a famous statement in United States history that perfectly illustrates this use of the singular "name" when it is being used to mean "in recognition of power or authority." Ethan Allen, writing about his capture of Fort Ticonderoga in 1775, quoted the words he spoke when the British commander of that fort asked him by what authority Allen had captured it.

Ethan Allen replied:

"In the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress." - p. 100, A Book About American History, Stimpson, Fawcett Publ., 1962 printing. (Also see Rebels and Redcoats, p. 54, Scheer and Rankin, Mentor Books, 1959 printing; and p. 167, Vol. 1, Universal Standard Encyclopedia, the 1955 abridgment of the New Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia.)

How ludicrous it would be to conclude that Allen really meant that Jehovah and the Continental Congress had the same personal name and were both equally God!

To paraphrase the quote credited to trinitarian writer Reymond at the beginning of this section above:

"What Ethan Allen does say is this ... 'in the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress,' first asserting the unity of the two by combining them within the bounds of the single Name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article ['the']."

According to this desperate attempt by trinitarians to make trinitarian evidence from Matt. 28:19, then, the same kind of statement by Ethan Allen is evidence (because of the singular "Name" and the repeated article) that The Continental Congress is equally God! (We might also consider a British expression: "in the name of God, king and country.")

Also notice how Luke 9:26 (which actually says, "when [Jesus] comes in the glory [singular] of him [Jesus] and of the Father and of the holy angels") is "first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single [glory], and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article." But, here, of course, the angels, too, make up the "trinity." We have, then, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy angels!

If Jesus were really saying that Jehovah, Jesus, and the holy spirit had personal names and these names must be used during baptism, he would have used the plural word "names" at Matt. 28:19. And we would see the Father's personal name ("Jehovah" - Is. 63:16; 64:8 - Ps. 83:18 and Luke 1:32 - Exodus 3:15 and Acts 3:13) and the Son's personal name ("Jesus" - Luke 1:31, 32) and the holy spirit's personal name ("?") all being used in Christian baptism ceremonies for the past 1900 years.

Honestly now, how many religions actually use the personal names "Jehovah," "Jesus," and "(??)" when baptizing? - ("We baptize you in the names of 'Jehovah,' 'Jesus,' and '???'.") Or, since a few anti-Watchtower trinitarians even claim that the singular "name" at Matt. 28:19 is really "Jehovah," how many religions really use the personal name "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") when baptizing? ("We baptize you in Jehovah's name.") Any church that does not do so, must be admitting, in effect, that "name" in this scripture does not mean personal name!

In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian "evidence" for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian "proofs"! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity!

On chirality and life.

 

Time for the sphinx to answer a riddle?

 James Tour Offers Three-Year Challenge to Lee Cronin to Demonstrate Legitimacy of Assembly Theory

Brian Miller

Rice University chemist James Tour recently lectured on the aftermath of his debate at Harvard University with University of Glasgow professor of chemistry Lee Cronin over the state of research into life’s origin. During the debate, Cronin promoted his Assembly Theory as a key tool in addressing life’s origin. Tour in a recent lecture offered a three-year challenge to Cronin. If Cronin can demonstrate that Assembly Theory provides any insight into life’s origin, Tour pledged to remove all his videos critiquing origins research and never publicly discuss the topic again. 

Background

The three-year challenge is an extension of Tour’s 60-day challenge to ten leading origins researchers to demonstrate that they have meaningfully addressed any of the most fundamental challenges to explaining life’s origin through natural processes. None of the experts even attempted to argue that anyone’s research had achieved any significant results. The ten were all invited to Harvard to respond to Tour’s critique of their field, but none accepted except Cronin. And Cronin would not participate unless Tour agreed to several restrictions. 

Tour was not allowed to speak during the dinner conversation unless he was asked a question. Tour also had to stop speaking if he was interrupted, and he could not interrupt anyone else who spoke. Despite these restrictions, the outcome of the debate illustrated why the other nine experts were wise in not showing up. 

Tour demonstrated why no one has any understanding of the most fundamental challenges in explaining how life originated. Tour also predicted that Cronin would not even discuss the chemistry. At this point, Cronin could have adjusted his talk to prove Tour wrong by explaining how he or others have progressed even a tiny bit in addressing at least one of the cited problems. Yet as predicted, Cronin did not discuss any chemistry or other relevant topic. Instead, he presented his Assembly Theory, which offers no explanation for any stage in an origin-of-life scenario. 

The Danger of Drinking and Tweeting

During Tour’s recent lecture, he described his continued interactions with Cronin. Of particular note, Cronin expressed great displeasure over Tour quoting his October 28, 2021, tweet where he stated that “Origin of life research is a scam.” On Twitter a scientist asked Cronin why. Cronin responded by stating “because no one is really trying to actually answer the question or think[s] it can be done.” 

After Tour publicly quoted Cronin’s assessment of the field, Cronin responded by claiming he was speaking “tongue-in-check.” Later, Cronin stated that “he had too much to drink” before he stated his view. Eventually, he explained his statement, presumably while sober, as follows:

The scam is: if we just make this RNA, we’ve got this…Let’s now make this other molecule. And how many molecules are going to be enough? …go back to Craig Venter, when he… said, “I’ve invented life.” Not quite. He facsimiled the genome from this entity and made it in a lab…But he didn’t make the cell. He had to take an existing cell that has a causal chain going all the way back to LUCA. [The last universal common ancestor, LUCA, is not the first life on Earth. It’s the latest ancestral form to all existing life.]…But it’s remarkable that he could not make a cell from scratch. And even now today, synthetic biologists cannot make a cell from scratch. Because there’s some contingent information embodied outside the genome in the cell….So, there’s lots of layers to the scam.

Tour also described how Cronin did not agree with the questions included in his 60-day challenge. Instead, Cronin believes research should start with a cell and then study how evolution refined the information. Cronin’s comments inspired the three-year challenge for Cronin to demonstrate how his theory could provide any insight into life’s origin, starting wherever he desires. Based on recent critiques of Assembly Theory, the public has little to fear about losing access to Tour’s content.

Hector Zenil Smackdown

Smackdown

Cronin has generated a great deal of hype around Assembly Theory, suggesting that it represents a monumental scientific breakthrough, as illustrated by several headlines:

“Assembly theory puts chemistry centre stage to explain molecular complexity and life’s origins”

“‘Assembly Theory’ unites physics and biology to explain the universe”

“Assembly Theory: Bold New ‘Theory of Everything’ Could Unite Physics and Evolution”

“Assembly Theory: A New Theory of Everything?”

The exaggeration of the importance of Assembly Theory has resulted in concerned responses by such experts as data scientist Hector Zenil who is an associate professor at the School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences at King’s College London. Zenil is a world-class researcher in computational analyses of biological systems, so he is as qualified as anyone to assess the relevance of Assembly Theory to research into life’s origin. Zenil felt so disturbed by the excessive hype that he appeared on Tour’s podcast to expose Cronin’s extreme negligence in so grossly misrepresenting the significance and originality of his theory. 

In the interview, Zenil explained how Assembly Theory is nothing more than an outdated compression algorithm. It not only provides no insight into life’s origin, but it offers nothing of value in any field of science. In his article “The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory,” Zenil summarizes his assessment as follows:

We argue that the authors’ marketing and promotional activities, deployed in service of what we think is a fallacious concept and a poorly examined methodology, are unfortunate and scientifically irresponsible.  

Cronin’s lauding of Assembly Theory was the best that the mainstream scientific community had to offer in response to Tour’s grim assessment of the state of origins research. Given the theory’s vacuous nature, the public has a right to hear the truth that the best description of scientists’ understanding of how life could have emerged through natural processes is clueless.