Saturday, 22 June 2024
Friday, 21 June 2024
Thoughtful Darwinism to ID : lets be frenemies II
Evolutionary Biologist Concedes Intelligent Design Is the Cutting Edge
Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying are well-known evolutionary biologists (and husband and wife) with a podcast, the DarkHorse Podcast. Recently Weinstein posed a provocative question, “Is intelligent design a competitor to Darwinian evolution?” His answer may surprise you: Yes.
No, he’s not about to come over to the dark side. Weinstein is confident that Darwinism will meet the challenges that ID has set, about the Cambrian Explosion and more, but he concedes that it hasn’t done so yet.
He describes conversations with Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, asking them why evolutionary biology hasn’t had a breakthrough since 1976 when Dawkins published The Selfish Gene. Dawkins and Coyne, separately, both answered that it was because all the big questions had already been answered, and all that was left was a “clean up” operation. Weinstein recognizes that that is just so much blowing smoke, and the work of Stephen Meyer and his “high-quality colleagues” in the ID research community has exposed the problems that Darwinists need to be working on to solve.
Settled Science?
About Dr. Meyer, he says:
I encountered people like Stephen Meyer, who were not phony scientists, pretending to do the work. They were actually very good at what they did. And I believe Stephen Meyer is motivated by a religious motivation, but we don’t generally ask the question when somebody takes up science, “What are you really in it for? Are you in it for the fame?” That’s not a legitimate challenge to somebody’s work.
And the fact is, Stephen Meyer is very good at what he does. He may be motivated by the thought that at the end of the search he’s going to find Jesus. But in terms of the quality of his arguments, I was very impressed when I met him: his love for biology, his love for creatures, the weirder the better, he likes them, right? So that looked very familiar to me.
No Mind Readers Here
In other words, motivation should be irrelevant. The quality of the science is what counts. I would add, none of us is a mind reader and we can never know what someone else’s motivation really is. In any event, says Weinstein, ID clearly is about science, not religion:
And it all also became obvious to me in interacting with Stephen Meyer and many of his high-quality colleagues that they’re actually motivated, for whatever reason, to do the job that we are supposed to be motivated to do inside of biology. They’re looking for cracks in the theory. Things that we haven’t yet explained. And they’re looking for those things for their own reasons, but the point is we’re supposed to be figuring out what parts of the stories we tell ourselves aren’t true, because that’s how we get smarter over time.
Shrinking from a Fight
Darwinists, say Weinstein, are shrinking from a fight they wrongly feel they shouldn’t have to bother with:
If you decide… that your challengers aren’t entitled to a hearing because they’re motivated by the wrong stuff, then you do two things. One, you artificially stunt the growth of your field, and you create a more vibrant realm where your competitors have a better field to play in because you’ve left a lot of holes in the theory ready to be identified, which I think is what’s going on. The better intelligent design folks are finding real questions raised by Darwinism, and the Darwinists, instead of answering those questions, [are] deciding it’s not worthy of their time. And that is it is putting us on a collision course.
“Giving Up Darwin”
Heying cites the 2019 public defection from Darwinism of Yale computer scientist David Gelernter, who pointed to Meyer’s writing as his primary reason for “Giving Up Darwin.” She admits she hasn’t kept up with the challenges from ID, but agrees that she should keep up, and that’s because challenges like those from ID can make the evolutionary establishment “smarter.” Ignoring the challenges makes the establishment dumber — stagnant and self-satisfied.
I’m not familiar with most of the arguments that are coming out of the intelligent design movement. It hasn’t felt like it was my obligation to be familiar with them. Perhaps what you’re arguing is it is our responsibility.
Weinstein, unlike Coyne or Dawkins, is up for talking and debating with ID proponents:
I’m open to that battle and I expect that if we pursue that question, what we’re going to find is, oh, there’s a layer of Darwinism we didn’t get and it’s going to turn out that the intelligent design folks are going to be wrong. But they will have played a very noble and important role in the process of us getting smarter. And look, I think Stephen Meyer at the end of the day, I don’t think he’s going to surrender to the idea that there’s no God at the end of this process. But if we find a layer of Darwinism that hasn’t been spotted, that answers his question, I think he’s going to be delighted with it the same way he’s delighted by the prospect of seeing whale sharks.
Again, these are remarkable concessions from a couple of scientists who are not at all looking to make the leap to ID, but who understand that intelligent design, not Darwinism, is currently at biology’s cutting edge.
Yet more on the fossil records anti Darwinian bias
Fossil Friday: Ediacaran Animal Embryos Put to Test and Put to Rest
The Weng’an biota of the Doushantuo Formation in South China is a famous fossil Lagerstätte, which is of particular importance, because it is dated to an Early-Middle Ediacaran age (590-575 million years ago), right in the time when molecular clock estimates place the origin of crown group metazoan animal phyla. The absence of actual unequivocal fossil animals from this period has often been explained away as an artifact of an incomplete fossil record. However, the discovery of various Ediacaran localities of the Burgess-Shale-Type decisively refuted this artifact hypothesis (Bechly 2020b), because those localities would have easily preserved any early small and soft-bodied animals, but only yielded macroalgae and a few problematic forms of uncertain affinity.
The Last Straw
The phosphatized microfossils of the Doushantou Formation, which are three-dimensionally preserved down to the cellular level, represent the last straw to somehow align the molecular clock expectations with the actual fossil record. This explains the urge by paleontologists to readily interpret some of the Doushantuo fossils as metazoan embryos. To the great frustration of evolutionists, all these attempts proved to be highly contentious and ultimately failed to provide any convincing evidence for Ediacaran metazoans. I discussed the dubious nature of these alleged animal embryos in several previous articles (Bechly 2020a, 2020b, 2022a; also see Evolution News 2016), where you can also find all the references to the peer-reviewed literature.
Now a new study by Sun et al. (2024), published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, looks at the developmental biology of the genus Spiralicellula that was previously proposed as a potential metazoan embryonic stage, a kind of planktonic larva. The authors found a very different developmental mode exhibited by Spiralicellula and all the other alleged metazoan embryos, lacking any cell differentiation, compared to any crown group metazoans. They therefore explicitly “reject a crown-metazoan affinity for Spiralicellula and all other components of the Weng’an biota, diminishing the probability of crown-metazoan diversification before the early Ediacaran.” The authors do not even consider Spiralicellula as a plausible stem-animal but conclude “that Spiralicellula is more likely affiliated with non-metazoan holozoans than with stem metazoans.” So the highly critical view that I elaborated in my previous articles is still well in line with the most recent mainstream research by the leading experts on these fossils.
A New Study
Therefore, it is well worth quoting at some length from the conclusions of this interesting and important new study:
While the embryo-like fossils from the Weng’an biota were once thought to represent the earliest metazoans, recent research has suggested that some species, including Caveasphaera [40], Helicoforamina [29], Ostiosphaera [47], Sporosphaera [33] and now Spiralicellula, have affinities that lie outside crown Metazoa. Interpretations of soma–germ cell differentiation in Megasphaera [21] have been used to support their interpretation as stem metazoans, at best. The primary evidence for a stem-metazoan affinity of Megasphaera derives from ‘matryoshka’ structures that are interpreted to reflect cell differentiation. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether these structures are endogenous or exogenous in origin [7,48]….
The Weng’an biota, renowned for its exceptional preservation fidelity, is considered a distinctive taphonomic window that holds great potential for documenting the earliest metazoans. The absence of definitive evidence of crown metazoans in the biota is inconsistent with the expectations of the molecular clock estimates which posit a Tonian or Cryogenian origin for the clade [1,2]. It remains formally possible that the absence of crown-group animals from the Weng’an biota and earlier strata reflects the incompleteness of the fossil record, and the discovery of unequivocal metazoans from the Weng’an biota or older strata remains a viable possibility, not least given the discovery of crown metazoans, including cnidarians and bilaterians, within the later Ediacaran [50–54]. However, claims of crown metazoans from the Cryogenian [55,56] and Tonian [57,58] are all highly contested [59–62] and intense exploration of the Weng’an biota, the most exceptional of all sites of fossil preservation, has failed to yield the anticipated evidence of early crown metazoans, instead yielding only evidence of non-metazoan holozoans or possible stem metazoans. Alongside the Weng’an biota, the Doushantuo silicified Lagerstätte in South China serves as its lateral counterpart [28,63–65]. Despite differing preservational settings, this Lagerstätte remarkably preserves fossil structures down to a subcellular level. It contains a diverse array of microfossils, including cyanobacteria, acritarchs, multicellular algae, and embryo- like fossils [63,66,67], all found in the Weng’an biota. Notably absent, however, are fossils of crown-group metazoans. As such, the available fossil evidence suggests a relatively low probability of crown metazoans diversifying in the early Ediacaran, rather than ecological constraints within the Weng’an biota’s preservational setting. Such insights prompt a recalibration of molecular timescales in light of these discoveries.
In short: There are no fossil animals in the Ediacaran, when they should be found according to the gradualistic predictions of Darwinian evolution and according to molecular clock datings. The fossil record does not agree with either of these predictions, so that the theory fails the empirical test.
Time for a Better Theory!
In his New York Times bestseller book Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer (2013) considered that the Ediacaran Doushantuo fossils may indeed include actual animal embryos of sponges. As I have already indicated (Bechly 2020b, 2022a, 2022b), this concession may have been far too generous. Even mainstream evolutionist science more and more recognizes that there simply are no metazoan animal embryos in the Doushantuo Formation. So, where are all the postulated ancestors of the more than twenty different animal phyla appearing abruptly in the Cambrian Explosion? Even Richard Dawkins (2009) has admitted that the Cambrian shows us a substantial number of major animal phyla “already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” Well, maybe nature is telling you something.
References
Bechly G 2020a. The Myth of Precambrian Sponges. Evolution News May 12, 2020. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/05/the-myth-of-precambrian-sponges/
Bechly G 2020b. The Demise of the Artifact Hypothesis. Evolution News June 6, 2020. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/07/demise-of-the-artifact-hypothesis-aggravates-the-problem-of-the-cambrian-explosion/
Bechly G 2022a. “Lying on the Internet”? Debunking Dave Farina on Stephen Meyer. Evolution News December 1, 2022. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/12/lying-on-the-internet-debunking-dave-farina-on-stephen-meyer/
Bechly G 2022b. Let’s Help “Professor Dave” Understand the Precambrian. Evolution News December 2, 2022. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/12/lets-help-professor-dave-understand-the-precambrian/
Dawkins R 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth. Free Press, New York (NY), 470 pp.
Evolution News 2016. New Precambrian Embryos Are equivocal at Best. Evolution News August 18, 2016. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/new_precambrian_1/
Meyer SC 2013. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. HarperOne, New York (NY), viii+498 pp.
Sun W, Yin Z, Liu P, Zhu M & Donoghue P 2024. Developmental biology of Spiralicellula and the Ediacaran origin of crown metazoans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 291: 20240101, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.0101
The carbon atom vs. Darwin.
The Remarkable Carbon Atom
In an article yesterday, I discussed the incredible design of the nonmetal atoms, and the striking coincidence that the very atoms from which one can build stable, defined shapes also give us the hydrophobic force, which is the key to arranging them into higher-level structures. Here, I will discuss the fitness of carbon for life, and the incredibly fortuitous circumstances that promote its abundance in the universe.
The Fitness of Carbon for Life
The carbon atom, the primary constituent of organic molecules, is, in several respects, uniquely fit for the assembly of the complex macromolecules found in the cell. First, due to the stability of carbon-carbon bonding, only carbon can form long polymers of itself, forming long chains or rings, while also bonding to other kinds of atoms. Though silicon can also form long chains by bonding with itself, these bonds are significantly less stable than carbon-carbon bonds. Plaxco and Gross note that “while silicon-silicon, silicon-hydrogen, and silicon-nitrogen bonds are similar in energy, the silicon-oxygen bond is far more stable than any of the other three types. As a consequence, silicon readily oxidizes to silicon dioxide, limiting the chemistry available to this atom whenever oxygen is present. And oxygen is the third most common atom in the Universe.”1 As Primo Levi explains, carbon “is the only element that can bind itself in long stable chains without a great expense of energy, and for life on earth (the only one we know so far) precisely long chains are required. Therefore carbon is the key element of living substance.”2
Second, carbon is tetravalent — that is, each atom can form four covalent bonds with other atoms. Third, carbon possesses a relatively small atomic nucleus, entailing short bond distances, thereby allowing it to form stable bonds with itself as well as other atoms. This property is also possessed by the other small, non-metal atoms in period two. Carbon is able to form single, double, and triple bonds with other atoms. Nitrogen can also form single, double, or triple bonds and oxygen can form single and double bonds. Contrast this with the nonmetal atoms directly beneath them in the periodic table — silicon, phosphorus, and sulfur — which possess larger atomic radii and therefore form such bonds less easily due to multiple bonds having reduced stability.
Another property of organic bonds is that their strength sits within a Goldilocks zone, being neither too strong nor too weak for biochemical manipulations in the cell. If the strength of those bonds were to be altered by a single order of magnitude, it would render impossible numerous biochemical reactions that take place in the cell. If it were too strong, the activation energy needed to break bonds could not be sufficiently reduced by enzymatic activity (enzymes strain chemical bonds by engaging in specific conformational movements while bound to a substrate). Conversely, if organic bonds were much weaker, bonds would be frequently disrupted by molecular collisions, rendering controlled chemistry impossible.
Another special characteristic of carbon is that there is not much variation in energy levels of carbon bonds from one atom to the next. Robert E. D. Clark explains that carbon “is a friend of all. Its bond energies with hydrogen, chlorine, nitrogen, oxygen, or even another carbon differ little. No other atom is like it.”3 Kevin W. Plaxco and Michael Gross further comment, “Carbon presents a fairly level playing field in which nature can shuffle around carbon-carbon, carbon-nitrogen, and carbon-oxygen single and double bonds without playing too great a cost to convert any one of these into another… Given all this, it’s no wonder that on the order of ten million unique carbon compounds have been described by chemists, which is as many as all of the described non-carbon-containing compounds put together.”4
Carbon Resonance
As we have seen, carbon is absolutely fundamental to life. It also happens to be — after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen — the fourth most abundant element in our galaxy. A carbon nucleus can be generated by smashing together two nuclei of helium-4 to make beryllium-8 (containing four protons and four neutrons) and then adding a further nucleus of helium to generate carbon-12 (containing six protons and six neutrons). However, beryllium is quite unstable, and can be expected to break apart into two nuclei of helium in 10-16seconds. On occasion, prior to the breaking apart of beryllium, a third helium nucleus collides with beryllium, resulting in a carbon nucleus. As it happens, the carbon atom possesses a special quantum property called a resonance, which facilitates this process. A resonance describes the discrete energy levels at which protons and neutrons in the nucleus can exist. Indeed, it turns out that the resonance of the carbon atom just so happens to correspond to the combined energy of the beryllium atom and a colliding nucleus of helium.
As Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes explain, “if there were a resonance at just the right place in carbon, the combined energy of the beryllium and helium nuclei would result in a carbon nucleus in one of its excited states. The excited carbon nucleus knows how to handle the excess energy without simply falling apart. It is less likely to disintegrate, and more likely to decay to the ground state with the emission of a gamma-ray photon. Carbon formed, energy released… success!”5 Without this specific resonance level, the universe would contain relatively few carbon atoms — in 1953, this specific resonance that had previously been predicted by Fred Hoyle was discovered by William Fowler, precisely where Hoyle had predicted it would be.
A Remarkable Coincidence
This special carbon resonance (known as the Hoyle state), which corresponds to the energy levels of the combined beryllium-8 nucleus and a helium-4 nucleus, renders the otherwise improbable process of carbon-12 formation feasible and efficient in the high-temperature environments of stellar cores. This delicate balance of energy levels is a remarkable aspect of nuclear astrophysics that allows for the creation of the elements necessary for life. If it were not for this special resonance, life very probably would not exist in our universe. This is another one of many countless features of our universe that have to be “just right” for life — in particular, advanced life — to exist.
Notes
Kevin W. Plaxco and Michael Gross. Astrobiology: A Brief Introduction, 2nd edition (The John Hopkins University Press, 2011), chapter 1.
Primo Levi, The Periodic Table (Abacus, 1990), 226-227.
Robert E.D. Clark, The Universe: Plan or Accident? 3rd edition, (Zondervan, 1972), 97.
Kevin W. Plaxco and Michael Gross. Astrobiology: A Brief Introduction, 2nd edition (The John Hopkins University Press, 2011), chapter 1.
Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos (Cambridge University Press, 2017), 116-117.
Thursday, 20 June 2024
Thoughtful Darwinism to ID :lets be frenemies.
A Secular Gay Agnostic Talks with Stephen Meyer
People who understand intelligent design and sympathize with it are a whole lot more diverse than ID critics assume. As I wrote here the other day about the “catholicity” or universalism of intelligent design:
Jewish theologian Will Herberg wrote a famous study of American society in 1955, Protestant, Catholic, Jew. Of course, that title left some important groups out. If I were going to write a book characterizing the universality of what we do, I might call it Protestant (Conservative or Liberal), Catholic, Jew, Eastern Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Agnostic, Platonist, Aristotelian. For David Berlinski, we might have to come up with a new category, “Enigmatic.”
A Thoughtful History
Right on cue, there comes along secular gay agnostic writer David Moulton, with a thoughtful history and evaluation of the ID research project, including an interview with Stephen Meyer. Writing for Compact, the online magazine edited by Sohrab Ahmari, Moulton has read Meyer’s work carefully, along with that of Michael Behe, and he has studied the relevant history. He talks about Darwin’s Black Box, the Sternberg affair, Dover, scientism, Darwin’s Doubt, and much more.
From, “Two Cheers for ‘Intelligent Design’”:
As an agnostic, I don’t accept all of Meyer’s conclusions. Nonetheless, it was refreshing to hear someone speak with so much rigor and erudition on the deepest questions of the human condition. He isn’t one to dodge hard problems or accept the arbitrary boundaries of academic specialization. Whether or not you agree with him, he offers provocative insights into science, philosophy, and the history of ideas.
So Moulton is not an ID advocate, but a sympathizer. I don’t see, though, why an agnostic couldn’t accept the conclusions of ID, and that first sentence of his above makes it sound like that’s what is holding him back. It need not deter him. An agnostic might recognize the scientific evidence but be unsure of the source of the design behind nature, while repeating Hamlet’s words, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Surprised by Scientism
He concludes poignantly with a recollection of his youth, and how he was taken by surprise by the rise of scientism:
As a teenager, I had no way of foreseeing these developments. All I knew was that I didn’t want to live in a society controlled by Christian fundamentalists. To this day, I believe in the fragile ideal of a secular, pluralistic society. I used to think that scientific expertise could help sustain this ideal by combating religious dogma. However, it’s clear by now that those who purport to speak in the name of science aren’t as neutral and objective as I once assumed. Often, science’s would-be spokesmen are bent on imposing their own dogmas. In hindsight, I should have been more concerned about scientism becoming an official state ideology. Science has many impressive discoveries to its credit, but we shouldn’t let it think and make political decisions on our behalf. Nor ought we to uncritically adopt the metaphysical views of the majority of scientists as our own. The question of God’s existence, for instance, remains as open today as at any other time in human history.
Why, by the way, do I tick off Moulton’s identities in the headline? I hate putting people into simplistic categories (secular, gay, agnostic). I also hate thinking according to one’s tribe (“What is someone like me supposed to think?”), and I love it when people shatter stereotypes. A writer like Moulton is not supposed to “get” ID, but he does. Definitely read the rest at Compact (it’s behind a paywall).
Wednesday, 19 June 2024
The foundation of a living ecosystem vs. Datwinism
An Astonishing Life-Friendly Coincidence: The Properties of the Nonmetal Atoms
Arguably the strongest class of evidence for a cosmic designer is teleological arguments. It is well established that there are far more ways in which the universe might have been that are non-conducive to life than there are life-friendly ways. Given an assumption of theism, it is not particularly surprising that the universe would be hospitable to embodied conscious beings like ourselves. Given an assumption of atheism, conversely, it is wildly surprising that the universe would be supportive of such beings. In light of this significantly top-heavy likelihood ratio, the astronomical rarity of life-friendly universes (and the fact that our universe in fact does support advanced life) tends to confirm theism. One species of teleological argument that deserves more attention is the argument from the prior environmental fitness of nature for the existence of advanced life, which has been popularized in recent years by the work of Michael Denton. Cumulatively, the evidence adduced in Denton’s various books make for a very compelling case that a mind is behind the design of our universe.
Nonmetal Atoms Give Molecules with Shape
One subclass of evidence in this category is the apparent fine-tuning of chemistry for the carbon-based cell, of which you can read in The Miracle of the Cell, by Dr. Denton.1 Here, I will highlight just one example. The figure below shows the periodic table of elements
The elements colored purple in the figure represent the nonmetal atoms, and it is these that make up the material substances of the cell — in particular, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. These are in fact the only atoms that could be used to build a biochemical system since they can form strong, stable, directional chemical bonds. Critically, these covalent bonds give molecules with shape, and it is shape that is the essence of biochemistry.
The Hydrophobic Force
Moreover, these atoms have an electronegativity such that the attraction of electrons for hydrogen and carbon is very similar. Since carbon and hydrogen have a similar value of electronegativity (i.e., how strongly atoms pull electrons towards the nucleus), this means that they are able to share electrons equally between the two atoms, creating a nonpolar covalent bond. On the other hand, when oxygen and hydrogen form a covalent bond, you get a polar molecule, where the electrons are shared unequally (specifically, oxygen has a higher electronegativity value, and hence attracts the shared electrons in the bond more strongly than does hydrogen).
This is critical for the whole organization of the cell, because it gives you the hydrophobic force, which is responsible for organizing the higher structure of the biological realm. The hydrophobic force refers to the tendency of nonpolar substances to aggregate in an aqueous environment to minimize their exposure to water. What causes this effect? When nonpolar molecules are introduced into water, it disrupts the structured hydrogen bonding network of water. Water molecules are unable to form hydrogen bonds with nonpolar molecules, leading to an energetically unfavorable situation. To minimize this disruption, water molecules arrange themselves in such a way that they are able to maintain as many hydrogen bonds as possible. To reduce the entropic cost and increase the overall stability, nonpolar molecules tend to aggregate together. By clustering in this way, the surface area in contact with water is minimized, and this reduces the number of water molecules that need to reorganize around them. For this reason, non-polar molecules are also called “hydrophobic” (water-repelling), whereas polar molecules are called “hydrophilic” (water-attracting).
The hydrophobic force is crucial to the assembly of membranes and proteins. Biological membranes are made up of phospholipids, which possess hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails. The hydrophobic tails avoid contact with water, whereas the hydrophilic heads interact with it. The result is the self-assembly of the phospholipids into a bilayer with the tails facing inward and the heads facing outward. In like manner, in a protein structure, amino acid side chains that are hydrophobic tend to avoid contact with the aqueous environment. On the other hand, chemical groups associated with polar (hydrophilic) side chains such as hydroxyl (-OH), amine (-NH2) and carboxyl (-COOH) groups form hydrogen bonds with water. The hydrophobic force drives the nonpolar residues to the protein’s interior, while the polar residues are exposed on the surface, interacting with water. This leads to the spontaneous folding of the protein into its native three-dimensional structure, which is crucial for its function.
So crucial is the hydrophobic force to protein folding that biochemist Charles Tanford, describing the discovery of how proteins fold, notes that “[T]he hydrophobic force is the energetically dominant force for containment, adhesion etc., in all life processes… This means that the entire nature of life as we know it is a slave to the hydrogen bonded structure of liquid water.”2
The Hydrophobic Force
Moreover, these atoms have an electronegativity such that the attraction of electrons for hydrogen and carbon is very similar. Since carbon and hydrogen have a similar value of electronegativity (i.e., how strongly atoms pull electrons towards the nucleus), this means that they are able to share electrons equally between the two atoms, creating a nonpolar covalent bond. On the other hand, when oxygen and hydrogen form a covalent bond, you get a polar molecule, where the electrons are shared unequally (specifically, oxygen has a higher electronegativity value, and hence attracts the shared electrons in the bond more strongly than does hydrogen).
This is critical for the whole organization of the cell, because it gives you the hydrophobic force, which is responsible for organizing the higher structure of the biological realm. The hydrophobic force refers to the tendency of nonpolar substances to aggregate in an aqueous environment to minimize their exposure to water. What causes this effect? When nonpolar molecules are introduced into water, it disrupts the structured hydrogen bonding network of water. Water molecules are unable to form hydrogen bonds with nonpolar molecules, leading to an energetically unfavorable situation. To minimize this disruption, water molecules arrange themselves in such a way that they are able to maintain as many hydrogen bonds as possible. To reduce the entropic cost and increase the overall stability, nonpolar molecules tend to aggregate together. By clustering in this way, the surface area in contact with water is minimized, and this reduces the number of water molecules that need to reorganize around them. For this reason, non-polar molecules are also called “hydrophobic” (water-repelling), whereas polar molecules are called “hydrophilic” (water-attracting).
The hydrophobic force is crucial to the assembly of membranes and proteins. Biological membranes are made up of phospholipids, which possess hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails. The hydrophobic tails avoid contact with water, whereas the hydrophilic heads interact with it. The result is the self-assembly of the phospholipids into a bilayer with the tails facing inward and the heads facing outward. In like manner, in a protein structure, amino acid side chains that are hydrophobic tend to avoid contact with the aqueous environment. On the other hand, chemical groups associated with polar (hydrophilic) side chains such as hydroxyl (-OH), amine (-NH2) and carboxyl (-COOH) groups form hydrogen bonds with water. The hydrophobic force drives the nonpolar residues to the protein’s interior, while the polar residues are exposed on the surface, interacting with water. This leads to the spontaneous folding of the protein into its native three-dimensional structure, which is crucial for its function.
So crucial is the hydrophobic force to protein folding that biochemist Charles Tanford, describing the discovery of how proteins fold, notes that “[T]he hydrophobic force is the energetically dominant force for containment, adhesion etc., in all life processes… This means that the entire nature of life as we know it is a slave to the hydrogen bonded structure of liquid water.”2
A Fortuitous Coincidence
It is thus a remarkably fortuitous coincidence that the very atoms that yield stable, defined shapes (from which macromolecules can be built) also generate the hydrophobic force which is the key to assembling them into higher three-dimensional forms. Nature does not owe us this life-friendly convergence, and yet if it were not for this coincidence, life could not exist. This is but one of many similar coincidences that are crucial to the existence of life — and, in particular, advanced life. Cumulatively, the evidence suggests that the universe was designed with life in mind.
Notes
Michael Denton, The Miracle of the Cell (Discovery Institute Press, 2020).
Charles Tanford, “How Protein Chemists learned about the Hydrophobic Factor: Protein Chemists and the Hydrophobic Factor.” Protein Science, vol. 6, no. 6, 1997, 1358-1366.
Tuesday, 18 June 2024
Against ninsnevem ad pluribus XVI
Nincs:If it were not stated in the NT that Christ really died, and it were not in it that the Son was "the firstborn from/among the dead" (with 'ek'), then it would certainly be reasonable to argue that he never died and "the the firstborn OF the dead" (without 'ek') would not prove the opposite. The term "firstborn" (prototokos) in contexts such as "firstborn from the dead" implies both participation and preeminence. Christ was part of the dead and the first to be raised, underscoring His supremacy. But the notion that Christ would be created, or that He would be a creature, or that He would be connected to creation with "ek" is *nowhere* in the NT.
Me:more argument by assertion their is no ex at revelation ch.1:5,it's almost as if JEHOVAH Looked ahead and anticipated trintarian trickery here. Your argument by unfounded assertion proves nothing this time either .there is no need for any ex as plainly demonstrated by all the other uses of prototokos in scripture with or without the "ex" the prototokos is part of the implicit or explicit set . You proved utterly unable to put up re:an example from scripture yet you won't shut up you're just wrong here.
In the Scripture the use of birth language re:JEHOVAH Is a reference to his creative activity
Hebrews ch.5:5So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:
“You are My Son,
TODAY I have begotten You.”"
The resurrection is a recreation of the one who has returned to his pre-creation state hence it us called begetting so Christ was begotten in time.
JEHOVAH of course had no recreation state hence cannot die and hence cannot be raised from the dead.
Both of the Logos begettings were in time and were the result of his God's creative activity.
John ch.1:18LSB"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
The Logos is not merely a created person but a created God.
Note that the angels are called elohim
at psalms 8:5
Nincs:Your example about David also does not refute my position, according to which "firstborn of X" is not an inherently partitive structure, but whether the classification has taken place or whether the given concept conceptually requires membership is what decides it. It is not possible to be a pre-eminent king without being a king, but it is indeed possible to be a pre-eminent, distinguished heir being in a supreme position in relation to the whole creation, without being a creature.
Yes it is always necessary for the heir to be part of the family always your argument by unfounded assertion never works nincs never, we are supported by the TOTALITY of scriptural precedent and you continue to FAIL to demonstrate otherwise all you have to your back is wishful thinking.
Monday, 17 June 2024
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus XV
Nincs:In Revelation 3:14, "arkhe" can indeed mean "beginning," but it should not be understood in the modern English way, but as "principle", hint: the English "principle" is a Latin loanword, Latin principium, which is how the Vulgate translates it in Rev. 3:14, as well as John 1:1a tc. The NT's usage in other contexts emphasizes a role of preeminence and authority, aligning with the interpretation of Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation. By the way, according to the modern consensus, the author of Revelation is not the same John as the one who wrote the Gospel or the three Johannine epistles.
me:Arkhe is used with regard to the Logos in the sense of beginning
1John ch.1:1NKJV"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— "
As for your claim that the consensus asserts that a different John wrote Revelation. The argument by assertion fails regardless of numbers. There is no such consensus.
Compare John ch.1:1, Revelation 19:13,1John ch.1:1
The entire Bible is the single work of the one divine author.
He is the beginning of JEHOVAH'S Creation the one he only two verses earlier ,see Revelation ch.3:12, identifies as MY GOD, and not his own creation. Therefore in view of the context he is clearly not the source of the creation.
At proverbs ch.8:22 we see that JEHOVAH'S wisdom expressed His Logos is cana/begotten
See Genesis ch.4:1 for another example of cana as birth language, as the beginning of his work
Proverbs ch.8:24,25NKJV"When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
25Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills, I was brought forth;"
Birth language is used of JEHOVAH To denote his creative work even of the inanimate creation. See psalms ch.90:2.
Obviously his being the first creation and his being the greatest creation are not mutually exclusive indeed the one would make the other more likely.
Nincs:The verb "ktizo" indeed allows for a double accusative construction, changing the emphasis from a mere creation to a designation of role, i.e., to make someone something (e.g., make him "arkhe" or "reshit"). This nuanced understanding supports the interpretation of Wisdom’s foundational role rather than a literal creation event. This is a critical distinction often overlooked in simpler translations.
Me:Again the two things are not mutually exclusive what is off the table is anyone creating "dia" JEHOVAH The Bible makes it clear that he is the ultimate source of the creation we know that he uses prior creations as instruments and or raw materials later creations this does not make these prior creations co-creators because ALL of the information and energy in them and through them is from him JEHOVAH Created the foundations of both the physical and superphysical creation.
Nincs:Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth, which inherently excludes any secondary deities or entities from this creative role. This monotheistic assertion aligns with the broader scriptural narrative, emphasizing Yahweh's sole sovereignty in creation.
Me:this falsifies a creation dia an uncreated mediator as such would be a supplement but not JEHOVAH'S Standard procedure of creating later creations with prior ones as a instruments and or raw materials as no creature would be a supplement to JEHOVAH'S Power or wisdom.
So any mediator must be a creation.
Hence this mediator is called the prototokos of creation see colossians ch.1:15 the term prototokos always denotes inclusion in the set of which he is prototokos, whether literally or figuratively there literally no exceptions o this uniformity. The fact that all we ever get from the other side is either crickets or red herrings when we ask them to produce an exception is compelling evidence in itself but please feel free to get a concordance and check for yourself.
Nincs:https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Isaiah%2044:24
Look at what the church fathers write, there is no sign that they exclude "only" pagan gods, not alleged demiurges, angels, etc.
Me:The demiurge is uncreated so bears closer resemblance to christendom's version of the Logos so basically you are arguing with yourself the scriptures show that it is standard procedure for JEHOVAH create "dia" prior creations
Genesis ch.6:7NNKJV"7So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” "
Of course none of the human or subhuman creatures then existing were created directly by JEHOVAH Yet he could be justly credited with their existence as all the information an energy that made them what they were came out of him.
Nincs:Tertullian argues against Hermogenes' view that matter is eternal and co-existent with God. He emphasizes that God alone is the Creator who "stretched out the heavens alone" (Isaiah 44:24), countering any notion that matter or any other entity shares this creative power. Tertullian addresses the unity of God and the distinction between the Father and the Son. He affirms that while God says He stretched out the heavens alone, this does not exclude the Son but rather includes Him in the divine act of creation, emphasizing the Son's unity with the Father.
Me:Red herring alert the God and Father of Jesus is plainly declared to be the One God of Israel by Jesus himself see John ch.8:54 again this is re:the relationship of the God and Father of Jesus with the nation of Israel see also Luke 1:32 where the God and Father of Jesus us called the MOST HIGH God . Thus excluding ALL others including the unincarnated spirit from the category of MOST HIGH God.
Thus when the God of Israel, the most high God declares that it was his power and wisdom ALONE that are to be credited for the existence of the creation all save the God and of Jesus are excluded.
Nincs:Athanasius explains that when Scripture says God created alone, it implicitly includes the Son. He stresses that the Son, being the Word of God, was present and active in creation, thus maintaining the unity and co-eternity of the Son with the Father. He argues against Arianism by highlighting that God declaring "I alone" in creation includes the Son as the Word through whom all things were made. This assertion upholds the Son’s divinity and eternal nature, countering the Arian view of the Son as a created being.
Me: actually the scriptures explicitly name the GOD and Father of Jesus as the MOST HIGH GOD : Luke ch.1:32NKJV"He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the LORD God will give Him the throne of His father David."
Clearly excluding Son and Spirit from the category of MOST HIGH GOD
John Ch.10:30NKJV"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than ALL(Not most); and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. "
Clearly excluding Son and Spirit from the category of the MOST HIGH GOD
John ch.17:3NKJV"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
Clearly excluding Son and Spirit from the category of only true God.
1Corinthians ch.8:6NKJV"yet for us there is ONE GOD, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live"
Clearly excluding Son and Spirit from the category of God who is the source of all the power and wisdom in the creation, while excluding the MOST HIGH GOD JEHOVAH from the category of Lord "dia" whom JEHOVAH'S Power is channeled so a double whammy against trinitarian absurdity.
Matthew ch.16:16NKJV"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of THE living God.”"
Clearly excluding the Son and the spirit from the category of self sustaining God.
John ch.6:57NKJV"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. "
Note the spirit is nor even mentioned and clearly the Son is not self sustaining like the MOST HIGH GOD JEHOVAH is, self-existence along with supremacy are attributes of the MOST HIGH GOD Any without these attributes are clearly not the JEHOVAH of the Bible.
Matthew ch.24:36NKJV"“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of [f]heaven, but My Father ONLY. "
Clearly excluding the Son and Spirit from the category of omniscient God.
Ephesians ch.4:6NKJV"one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in [c]you all."
Clearly excluding the Son and Spirit from the category of the supreme God
This why the unqualified "ho theos" is used exclusively of the God and Father of Jesus also while the expression (The)God the Father is common in the N.T the expression God the son or God the spirit are TOTALLY absent. The monarchy of the God and Father Jesus the Lord JEHOVAH is plainly declared O.T and N.T alike.
Nincs:Ambrose discusses the concept of God working alone in creation. He states that this "alone" includes the Son, who is described in Proverbs 8:30 as being with the Father during creation. This interpretation aligns with the understanding of the Trinity, where the Son is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father.
Me:I thought the wisdom here in proverbs ch.822-30 was merely an abstract quality and not a living person. If we go back we verse24,25 we see that this one was brought forth by JEHOVAH in line with Jesus declaration at John ch.6:57 . So clearly is not JEHOVAH Who is no ones Son but everyone's Father. Being creation he cannot be regarded as a supplement to JEHOVAH'S Power and wisdom any more than the parents who played a very active role in our creation by JEHOVAH.
A coarse response to the finetuning argument?
On Fine-Tuning, Responding to an Atheist YouTuber
James Fodor is a neuroscience grad student at the University of Melbourne in Australia who identifies himself as an atheist. In a recently published YouTube video, Fodor confidently presents what he thinks are a number of problems with the fine-tuning argument. After taking the time to carefully go through his 40-minute video, I believe that he has overestimated the significance of his arguments in presenting a case against theism.
Fodor begins by outlining the fine-tuning argument and then expresses his objection to a “fixation on constants” (such as the strengths of the fundamental forces, the masses of elementary particles, etc.). He declares that the constants have no meaning outside of a set of physical laws (I believe he means equations), and that we have “no idea of what the universe would be like if the laws were different.” In support of his contention that different universes could or would have different physical laws (not just physical constants), he pulls a quote from a paper by Luke Barnes, titled “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life.” Ironically, the main focus of Barnes’ paper is supporting the theistic fine-tuning argument, using physics and cosmology, as he refutes a dubious critique of fine-tuning by the late atheistic physicist Victor Stenger.
Barnes addresses the issue of whether the fine-tuning argument would be undermined by allowing different universes to have different equations for the laws of nature, but he reaches an entirely contradictory conclusion to Fodor’s.
The intuition here is that, if ours were the only universe, and if the causes that established the physics of our universe were indifferent to whether it would evolve life, then the chances of hitting upon a life-permitting universe are very small.
BARNES, P. 3
Barnes argues that allowing alternate universes to possess laws of physics contrary to our own does nothing to alleviate the curious condition that laws and constants of nature in our universe are fine-tuned to allow life. One of the fundamental truths of physics is that any attempt to describe our universe from a purely theoretical perspective is insufficient. We have to “open the window,” so to speak, and take a look at our world in order to actually know what it’s like. This means that the universe could have been different than it is. The way it is, compared to the ways it could have been, shows knife-edged fine tuning for life.
A Tautological Argument
Such fine-tuning for life cannot be dismissed with a tautological argument saying, “Of course our universe has parameters that allow intelligent life. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here.” I suppose a limited amount of brilliance shines through those who contend against fine-tuning with this argument, but the fine-tuning argument far out-shines this dull retort. As I state in my book, Canceled Science,
Yes, the values of the laws and constants of nature must be in a range that allows us to exist if we’re going to be around to notice our good fortune, but the surprising thing is how narrow this range of possible values turns out to be….Our being here to discover fine tuning doesn’t require that those parameters be balanced on a knife edge. Since they are, we have an additional reason to suspect, as the distinguished astronomer Fred Hoyle has famously said, that a “super-intellect has monkeyed with physics.”
CANCELED SCIENCE, P. 64
Consider Velocity
Are the equations expressing the laws of nature determined by nature or are they in fact more fundamental relations between physical concepts, such as space, time, mass, force, energy, and fields? For example, let’s look at the basic physics relation expressed as “distance equals velocity multiplied by time,” which follows from a definition of velocity as displacement per time. Is it even meaningful to postulate a hypothetical universe in which this definition doesn’t hold?
Or, take the example of Newton’s universal law of gravity, where the force between two masses, m1 and m2, separated by a distance r, is given by F=Gm1m2/r2. This relation could be found by making careful measurements, but its form could also be derived based on the geometry of three-dimensional space and symmetry considerations. However, what cannot be mathematically derived from any fundamental theory of physics is the value of the gravitational constant, G; it must be measured. The same argument for the form of the equation can be made for the fundamental force between charged particles, with the same need to observe our universe to obtain the value of the embedded constant.
Changing the exponent of the particle separation parameter, r, in the denominator of either equation implies a universe with a different number of spatial dimensions (say, two or four dimensions, instead of three). Contrary to Fodor’s statements, we know what this would imply — no life. With fewer than three dimensions, complex biochemistry cannot exist. With more than three dimensions, stable orbits, either for planets or for electrons orbiting nuclei, would not be possible
Imagining Universes
To further answer Fodor’s suggestion that fine-tuning is defeated because we can imagine universes with different laws of physics, a quote from Barnes is informative. Here he rebuts Stenger’s attempt to nullify the fine-tuning argument with a similar argument.
In reply, fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is suitably (and robustly) small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset. It is easy to find examples of such claims.
A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws “all the way down” (i.e. with no quantum regime at small scales) will not have stable atoms — electrons radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus — and hence no chemistry (Barrow & Tipler, 1986, pg. 303). We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that life in such a universe is plausibly impossible.
If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be no chemistry.
If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures.
If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be no atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and incapable of complexity.
BARNES, P. 18
After giving a few other examples of how variations of the laws of physics would render life impossible, Barnes acknowledges that extrapolating from our present knowledge of physics to other realms with widely varying laws would stretch our understanding beyond the point of certainty.
We should be cautious, however. Whatever the problems of defining the possible range of a given parameter, we are in a significantly more nebulous realm when we try to consider the set of all possible physical laws.
BARNES, P. 19
In my opinion, our lack of God-like knowledge of the physics of all possible universes is an entirely irrelevant objection to the verity of the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics for this universe to support life. Barnes agrees:
The point is this: however many ways there are of producing a life-permitting universe, there are vastly many more ways of making a life-prohibiting one…. Amidst the possible universes, life-permitting ones are exceedingly rare. This is fine-tuning par excellence.
BARNES PP. 38-39
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus XIV
Nincs: The term "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος, prototokos) in Colossians 1:15 refers to rank and preeminence, not temporal order. The Watchtower's own publication, "Aid to Bible Understanding," states:
Me:Red herring alert the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set ALWAYS ,the first member ,the foremost member ,both the first and the foremost member because obviously these two categories are not mutually exclusive so that establishing that the prototokos belongs to the one category does not exclude his simultaneously being of the other category.
Mr. Nevems inability to provide a single falsification of this uniformity as we will all see pretty much seals the deal.
Nincs"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “first-born,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah."
"Jesus Christ, as the “first-born of all creation,” always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed “heir of all things.”—Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2"
So they admit that "firstborn" in Col. 1:15 is understood precisely in the Old Testament sense, which indicates a position of supremacy, not simply being the first created. Biblical precedent for this usage includes Psalm 89:27, where David, though not the firstborn son of Jesse, is called "firstborn" because of his preeminence and chosen status by God. This reinforces that "firstborn" indicates a status of preeminence rather than chronological birth order. Just as David was not the firstborn but was given the title due to his preeminence, Jesus is referred to as "firstborn of all creation" to indicate his supreme status over creation, not that he was the first created being.
Me:note please that in both these first example the prototokos is the foremost member of the group of which he is prototokos,so far Mr.Nevem is of to a flying start reinforcing the Bible's uniformity regarding the MANDATORY inclusion of the prototokos in the set of which he is prototokos. Don't be distracted whether he is the first member or the foremost member is besides the point.
Nincs:Thus in Colossians 1:15, Paul uses "firstborn" in a context that emphasizes Christ's authority and supremacy over all creation, which aligns with the biblical concept of birthright denoting rannincsk and preeminence. The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prototokos) in this context reflects Christ’s sovereignty and role as the heir and ruler of all things, not a temporal creation
Not all uses of "firstborn" in the NT imply temporal priority. For instance, in Hebrews 1:6, the term "firstborn" refers to Christ being brought into the world with a status that requires worship from the angels, indicating a position of honor and authority. Revelation 1:5 refers to Jesus as "the firstborn of the dead," which signifies his preeminence in resurrection, not that he was the first to be resurrected chronologically.
The term "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 aligns with the Old Testament usage to denote rank, preeminence, and authority rather than chronological birth order. This interpretation is consistent with both biblical context and the Watchtower’s own publications. The New Testament usage of "firstborn" emphasizes Christ’s supremacy and divine role, refuting the claim that it always indicates temporal priority.
Me:actually Hebrews days that the Logos was MADE Greater than the angels in a certain respect but only after being MADE Lower than the angels in every respect.
Hebrews ch.1:4KJV"Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."
Hebrews ch.2:9KJV"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
JEHOVAH Did not inherit his rank from anyone so clearly we are not talking about an equal which only makes sense as the Bible clearly refers to the God and Father of Jesus as the MOST HIGH God therefore as having no equals on either side.
See Luke ch.1:32
When did he become firstborn here.
Hebrews ch.5:5KJV"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, TO DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee."
At acts ch.13:33 Paul applies this to the resurrection. Is anyone going to deny that he is the firstborn member of that set both in the sense of being the first and foremost .
So the red herrings have once more failed to rescue Mr.nevem
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus XIII
Nincs:The term "prototokos" (firstborn) in Greek does not inherently mean "first created." It often signifies rank, preeminence, or priority in status rather than origin. Paul's use of "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes Jesus' supremacy and authority over all creation, indicating His preeminent status rather than suggesting He is part of the created order. The surrounding verses in Colossians 1:16-17 clarify that Jesus is the agent of creation: "For by Him all things were created... all things have been created through Him and for Him." This shows Jesus' active role as Creator, not as a part of creation. The term "prototokos" aligns with this context by highlighting Jesus' supreme authority over all creation, reinforcing His divine nature and role as Creator.
The term prototokos inherently indicates membership in the implicit or explicit set of which one is prototokos,this is even a rule ,rules have exceptions there NO(as in none whatsoever)exceptions to this uniformity in scripture, There for Jesus being the prototokos of creation MUST make him part of the creation, the fact that the creation occurs "dia" him proves that he is not the source of the creation as pointed out ad nauseum "dia" indicates instrumentality from dia we get the word diameter. Thus he us not the source of the power and wisdom in the creation it is merely being channeled through Him. Our parents play an active role in creating us but they are not considered co- creators.
Thayers re: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 (R. V. the firstborn of all creation) (see κτίσις, 2 b.),
Note the admission that this is in fact a patitive genitive a natural reading minus trinitarian mental gymnastics puts him among the creation his being the foremost creation would still mean that he is a creation.
Nincs:Hebrews 1:6 refers to Jesus as the "firstborn" and clearly positions Him above all angels, emphasizing His superiority rather than His inclusion in the category of angels. The term "monogenes" means "only-begotten" or "unique," highlighting Jesus' unique relationship with the Father. This does not imply creation but signifies a unique and eternal relationship. In the New Testament, "monogenes" is used to emphasize the uniqueness and special status of Jesus as the Son of God (John 1:14, 3:16).
Actually the verse says he was MADE higher than the angels but only after his being MADE lower than the angels. Both statements are unacceptable re:JEHOVAH Who is immutable the MOST HIGH God and thus cannot be MADE higher or lower than his unchangeable supreme status and nature as the supreme divinity. Birth language re:JEHOVAH Always refers to JEHOVAH'S Creative activity and the book of Hebrews does speak of a begetting in time.
Hebrews ch.5:5NKJV"So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:
“You are My Son,
TODAY have begotten You.”"
Christ resurrection is called a begetting the resurrection is a creative act,beget when used of JEHOVAH Means create in time because all creating must happen in time only things and states do not exists need to be created.
Nincs:The argument that Jehovah creates through preceding creations fails to address the specific role of Jesus as described in the New Testament. John 1:3 explicitly states that "all things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being," affirming Jesus as the Creator, not a created being. Colossians 1:16-17 reiterates this by stating that "by Him all things were created" and "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," emphasizing His pre-existence and sustaining power over creation.
Me: The fact that the creation is "dia" him clearly indicates that he is NOT the creator there is not a SINGLE passage of scripture that speaks of creation as occurring "dia" JEHOVAH, if then he is not the creator then he must be part of the creation, colossians ch.1:15 clearly indicates that this is indeed the case and again we don't have to quibble as to whether this means he is the first creation or the foremost creation the two things are not mutually exclusive.
The JW argument incorrectly conflates "prototokos" with creation. While "prototokos" can denote priority, it does not necessarily imply that the one referred to is part of the created order. In biblical usage, it often signifies preeminence and authority. The use of "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 highlights Jesus' supreme position over creation, in line with the overall biblical portrayal of His divine nature and role as Creator.
Me:JWs take note of the uniform precedent of scripture of including the prototokos in the implicit or explicit set of which he is prototokos there is not a single scriptural precedent for doing otherwise if there was you and your confederates would have produced it by now.
Nincs:John 8:54 and Acts 3:13 highlight Jesus' relationship with the Father during His earthly ministry. These passages do not contradict His divine nature but emphasize His incarnate role and submission to the Father as part of the salvific plan. You completely unfoundedly confuse the Old Testament use of the word "the Father" with the way "the Father" is used in the context of the NT, when it speaks of him in opposition to the Son.
Me: actually both John ch.8:54 and Acts ch 3:13 speak of the realitionship of the God and Father of Jesus(JEHOVAH) To the nation of Israel he is the one an only God of Israel so this has nothing to do with your incarnation and further more Acts ch.3:13 is speaking of the state of affairs after Jesus' glorification.
And what about the spirit who was not incarnated, so the incarnation is a red herring .
Against Nincsnevem ad pluribus XII
Nincs:The assertion that "there is no such thing" (?!) as a non-temporal emergence is nothing more than proof by assertion, and a misunderstanding of metaphysical concepts. In Christian theology, specifically Nicene Christology, the Son's begetting by the Father is understood as an eternal generation, not a temporal event. This means it is a logical, not temporal, subalternation and relationship, affirming the co-eternity of the Son with the Father. "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." (Council of Florence) Orthodox Christology affirms the eternal, non-temporal begetting of the Son.
Me:if the Son has always existed then logically he never emerged whether his continued existence is dependent on another is a separate issue although such depedendence would render him inferior to the one God of scripture who is totally self sustaining and is in no ones debt.
Roman's ch.11:34,35,NKJV"“For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35“Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”"
It is a rhetorical question JEHOVAH is in no ones debt especially for his continued existence.
Nincs:Origen explains this as an eternal act within the Godhead:
"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood."
"Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words when or never have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. "
Any Creed that can be accepted without logic can certainly be rejected on account of logic indeed the ones rejecting for logic sake have a better cause for rejecting,than those who accept despite a plain conflict with logic.
Emergence requires time and place preservation is not emergence, although the idea of a God that is not self-sustaining conflicts with the plain declaration of scripture re:the character of the one and only JEHOVAH the only true God.
Nincs:This affirms that the Logos (Word) existed eternally with the Father, beyond the confines of time.1 John 1:1 uses "apo archē" (from the beginning) to indicate the Logos’ existence before creation, aligning with John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word." This indicates a pre-temporal existence, not a temporal beginning. The claim that "apo archē" refers to a temporal beginning is refuted by the context of John 1:1-3, which clearly states that the Logos was with God and was God, emphasizing the eternal nature of the Word.
Me:Apo arkhe ALWAYS Means from the beginning never from eternity which would definitionally mean without beginning.
The fact that he is apo arkhe excludes his being from eternity, notice that JEHOVAH is NEVER spoken of as being "apo arkhe" because it would be absurd.
Nincs:The phrase "archē tēs ktiseōs" in Revelation 3:14 is often mistranslated in the NWT as "the beginning of the creation BY God." The correct translation, "the 'archē' of the creation OF God," indicates Christ as the source or origin of creation, not the first created being. The NWT's use of "by" instead of "of" is misleading. The Greek text does not support "hupo" (by), but rather "archē" denotes the origin or source, aligning with John 1:3 where all things were made through Him. It is also no coincidence that no one referred to Rev. 3:14 in the 4th century Arian debates, why? Because a native Greek speaker would never think of such nonsense, since all educated Greeks knew that the archē is the first principle from which creation flows, not the first piece of created things. Read this: https://justpaste.it/bv4ep
Me: I never quoted from the NWT why is it that you people are ALWAYS the First to bring up the NWT, the creation OF JEHOVAH Would logically have JEHOVAH as its source
Thus the context indicates the Jesus is starting point of JEHOVAH's Creation JEHOVAH himself being the source of that creation including Jesus which would match
Proverbs ch.8:24,25 which shows his expressed wisdom being brought forth/begotten all the information and energy in the creation being from JEHOVAH This is a fitting analogy
Your claim that a prophet cannot be equal to God and can be replaced overlooks the unique nature of Christ. Jesus is not just a prophet but the incarnate Word of God (John 1:14), fully divine and human.
Christ is actually superhuman having permanently sacrificed his human perfection for our sakes he has now been rewarded with superhuman perfection by his God and Father and still he acknowledges his God and Father as His superior
Revelation ch.3:12NKJV"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of MY GOD, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of MY GOD and the name of the city of MY GOD, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from MY GOD. And I will write on him My new name."
Nincs:Hebrews 1:3 states, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being," affirming the full deity of Christ. Unlike prophets, Jesus shares the same nature as the Father, making Him indispensable and uniquely qualified as the Redeemer.
Me: more trinitarian cope a representation us never equal to the thing it represents,that is why if someone destroys your photograph they will not be charged with murder the photo is but a representation of you, it is not the reality of you, the reality is always of superior worth, note too that he is a representation of THE God (JEHOVAH) see Hebrews ch.1:1 not merely the Father,though that would be O.K because only the father is the unqualified "ho theos" in the N.T
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)