AWAKE #3 2021 - should you believe in a creator? You decide

[carlos]

1 hour ago, Susan Cook said:

The subject index is fair to discuss of course, but perhaps not the cover picture though ( which was detailed in the OP and is clearly not publicly available yet, as it was obviously mined from the servers.) Maybe if the information was mined, and gets passed on, we should just keep it under wraps and not divulge it?

That #3 Awake may be a month away from release yet.

Susan, there is a group of moderators who enforce the forum rules and take care of matters like this. It's better to leave these subjects in their hands. If there is something you think should be addressed you can contact the moderators and let them handle it. Do not correct other members publicly.

[Tortuga]

https://www.jw.org/finder?marin=E&issue=2021-11&pub=g21&srcid=share

 

It's been released.

[ChrisC]

I love how these articles keep referring to the complexity of the cell. Refer to something like the eye and someone might mention how some animals have ‘primitive’ light receptors, and that the eye ‘evolved from them.’

But referring to the cell stops that dead in its tracks because ‘primitive cells’ just wouldn’t function. 

 

 

 

[rocket]

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/awake-no3-2021-nov-dec/universe-tells-us-about-creation/

 

What the Universe Tells Us

 

Quote

The universe is organized. “Galaxies are not randomly splayed out across the sky but instead follow a weblike pattern,” according to an article in Astronomy magazine. How is this possible? Scientists believe that the secret may lie in an invisible material known as dark matter. This dark matter has been called “a kind of unseen scaffolding upon which . . . galaxies, galaxy clusters, and galaxy superclusters . . . are aligned and supported.”

 

Dark matter is an interesting study of how galaxies are held together instead of scattering.  It makes me think of Isaiah 40:22, "...He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

 

Quote

Dark energy, however, is not the only “dark” oddity discovered in recent times. Another was confirmed in the 1980’s when astronomers examined various galaxies. These galaxies, as well as our own, appeared to be spinning too fast to hold together. Evidently, then, some form of matter must be giving them the necessary gravitational cohesion. But what kind of matter? Because scientists have no idea, they have called the stuff dark matter, since it does not absorb, emit, or reflect detectable amounts of radiation. How much dark matter is out there? Calculations indicate that it could make up 22 percent or more of the mass of the universe._ g 8/09 18

Quote

 

Dark matter was postulated in the 1930’s and confirmed in the 1980’s. Today astronomers measure how much dark matter a cluster of galaxies may have by observing how the cluster bends light from more distant objects. __g 8/09 18

 

 

[Michał]

3 hours ago, rocket said:

Dark matter was postulated in the 1930’s and confirmed in the 1980’s.

I'd like in the NW to be the person who postulates something and later we confirm it (Ecc 3:11), that kind or creation research gives me thrills

[PonderThis]

On 11/16/2021 at 12:28 PM, ChrisC said:

I love how these articles keep referring to the complexity of the cell. Refer to something like the eye and someone might mention how some animals have ‘primitive’ light receptors, and that the eye ‘evolved from them.’

But referring to the cell stops that dead in its tracks because ‘primitive cells’ just wouldn’t function. 

 

 

 

@ChrisC

Could you explain a little further what you mean by "'primitive cells' just wont function."?

In biology things like bacteria and amoeba are considered 'primitive cells.  So I think you are using the term differently than the way it is understood in Biology.

 

 

[ChrisC]

I meant so-called simple cells.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010344#h=2

 

 

 

[ChrisC]

1 minute ago, ChrisC said:

I meant so-called simple cells.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010344#h=2

 

 

 

(Where is the edit button?)

You can’t make cells gradually starting with ‘primitive’ ones.

[ChrisC]

BBC Science Focus magazine issue 13 came out recently. “THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO ANCIENT LIFE ON EARTH”

To me this reads like repeatedly pulling rabbits from hats!

 

 

 

And here we have the admission that it is impossible for DNA to come about by accident, which they choose to ignore in the next paragraph:

 

[Sheep]

5 hours ago, ChrisC said:

(Where is the edit button?)

Yeah. We've all had that problem. There is no edit button anymore. But there is an edit function hidden behind those three dots in the upper, right corner of your post (beside the post #). You just have to find it and change your post within 15 minutes after you posted it. After 15 minutes, the edit function disappears.

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by Sheep

[PonderThis]

19 hours ago, ChrisC said:

(Where is the edit button?)

You can’t make cells gradually starting with ‘primitive’ ones.

I am curious how you come to this conclusion. The current hypothesis to resolve this is cited in the article:
- "In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them."

 

The following sentence even outlines the theoretical basis in a colloquial fashion.

-Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to  keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated."⁹*

 

 

I think the core problem with this discussion is this: Intelligent Design is a philosophical answer to the origin of life while abiogenesis is the physical answer.  Scientists are looking for the physical mechanisms upon which the process began us trying to answer the HOW and WHAT. How did this process begin, WHAT materials and environment were required. Intelligent Design attempts to address the question of WHY. WHY is process x so complex? WHY is this mechanism a paradox? The fact that the abiogenesis theory does not answer the WHY.  And ID provide nothing constructive or useful for research to the discussion.

 

 

 

[ChrisC]

I am admittedly out of my depth with some of this, but the footnote to ¶ 9 is interesting:

[carlos]

3 hours ago, ChrisC said:

I am admittedly out of my depth with some of this, but the footnote to ¶ 9 is interesting:

That's like saying you eat some fish and, instead of digesting it, your body assimilates its DNA in yours and you can breathe under water.

It doesn't sound very believable.

[jayrtom]

14 hours ago, PonderThis said:

I am curious how you come to this conclusion. The current hypothesis to resolve this is cited in the article:
- "In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them."

 

The following sentence even outlines the theoretical basis in a colloquial fashion.

-Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to  keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated."⁹*

 

 

I think the core problem with this discussion is this: Intelligent Design is a philosophical answer to the origin of life while abiogenesis is the physical answer.  Scientists are looking for the physical mechanisms upon which the process began us trying to answer the HOW and WHAT. How did this process begin, WHAT materials and environment were required. Intelligent Design attempts to address the question of WHY. WHY is process x so complex? WHY is this mechanism a paradox? The fact that the abiogenesis theory does not answer the WHY.  And ID provide nothing constructive or useful for research to the discussion.

 

 

 

In fact there is no "simple" cell! Even an eukaryotic cell is complex enough that it can't be explained by evolution of simpler versions - There is nothing more simple than a cell (whatever the cell) that could evolve into a cell. There are elements of the cell that if isolated are simpler than a cell, like proteins, DNA, etc... But this elements don't carry life. They are needed for life to exist but in itself thei're not life

 

We have an experiment that can prove that an inteligent being is needed even if we consider that life arouse from a primitive "soup" of materials on an higly active enviorenement - That is the Miller experiment. Atheists usually use that experiment to show that life could have started by itself from a primitive soup. Only theu forget the role of the inteligent mind that conducted the experiment... Miller himself! That was a key factor for the apparent succec of the experiment. At most it proved that life needs an inteligent mind in order to appear

[jayrtom]

On 11/19/2021 at 6:00 AM, rocket said:

Dark matter is an interesting study of how galaxies are held together instead of scattering.  It makes me think of Isaiah 40:22, "...He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

I usually think of this text as perfectly depicting the action of the expansion of the Universe since the big bang

 

We don't know exactly what Dark Matter is, and apparently it is impossible to know, because (altough the name) it is transparent! It's existence is deduced from indirect observations of what we can see and it's existence is almost certain, but what it really is its a complet mistery

 

 

[PonderThis]

The 

14 hours ago, carlos said:

That's like saying you eat some fish and, instead of digesting it, your body assimilates its DNA in yours and you can breathe under water.

It doesn't sound very believable.

This is a bad analogy.  The actual hypothesis runs through a series of events.  

First the pro-eukaryotic cell ingests the foreign bacterium.  

The Bacterium is not digested and continues to perform it's functions and reproduce.

The pro-eukaryotic cell divides and some of the bacterial are in each cell.

This symbiotic relationship continues for a number of generations.

The environmental pressure of being inside the pro-eukaryotic cell facilitates change in the function of the bacterium and dependence.  In turn the presence of the bacterium and its waste material is an environmental pressure that the cell adapts to.

Eventually, over a long time the interdependence becomes paradoxical ( i.e. one cannot live with the other ) 

Also due to the long exposure through the course of time bacterium will naturally shed RNA material into the pro-eukaryotic cell leading to the adoption of some materials.
 

The reason this is not reproducible in physical experiment at this time has to due with the nature of the way life evolves.  In order see with certainty what this interaction would look like one would first need to create the precursors, which necessitates the earlier precursors and so on until you reach pre-organic materials.  
The way researchers approach this problem is through simulation and modelling.  However, at this time no-one model seems to suffice.  Thus the designation hypothesis is still appropriate.  On the other hand molecular analysis of the various parts of eukaryotic cells reveal a definite connection between bacteria and various structures.  Currently the similarities between mitochondria and bacteria are just too striking to be overlooked.  Thus the popularity of the idea.

Continually looking at scientific conjectures and believing them blindly is generally a bad idea.  However ID's answer is to simply attempt to undermine science through logical fallacy and then conclude 'It's a mystery"  If Scientists cannot demonstrate abiogenesis that is in no way proof of Intelligent Design.  It is simple proof of the lack of knowledge in the field. In order for there to be ID there is no requirement that the process be mysterious or supernatural.  Look at the snowflake crystal.  It is a completely natural and well understood phenomena, it is beautiful to the human observer. Each snowflake is likely unique. Yet each is the result of random interaction of air, water, temperature that results in regular geometry and apparent design.  Randomness does not preclude design nor does design eliminate randomness.

As far as dark matter/energy.  Remember that quantum physics is the study of matter that is not observable.  

[jwhess]

1 hour ago, PonderThis said:

Continually looking at scientific conjectures and believing them blindly is generally a bad idea.  However ID's answer is to simply attempt to undermine science through logical fallacy and then conclude 'It's a mystery"  If Scientists cannot demonstrate abiogenesis that is in no way proof of Intelligent Design.  It is simple proof of the lack of knowledge in the field. In order for there to be ID there is no requirement that the process be mysterious or supernatural.  

Br. Paul, I am a little confused as to your position on the natural world around us.  Do you have a doubt about the universe (and our Earth / Biology) being "designed by the Intelligent Creator?  Or are you arguing against the common "creationist" view of ID as noted in the Encyclopedia?  "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the for the existence of God"

 

Our position as Jehovah's servants is in favor of the idea of his Intelligent Design of the universe.

 

 

JW.ORG Frequently Asked Questions

How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses View Science?

(last paragraph)

 

…since the natural world reflects intelligent design, we share the view of many biologists, chemists, and others who have concluded that living things did not evolve through a process of random mutation and natural selection.

 

*** g 12/09 p. 7 Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? ***

What do you think? Which explanation best fits the fine-tuning observable in the cosmos? Purposeful design or mindless process?

 

*** lc p. 15 Who Designed It First? ***

If the copy requires an intelligent designer, what about the original? Really, who deserves more credit, the master engineer or the apprentice who imitates his designs?

▪ Does it seem logical to you to believe that the brilliant engineering evident in nature came about by accident?

▪ How would you answer the claim that life only appears to be designed?

 

*** w07 8/15 p. 3 Design Without a Designer? ***

     Some object that God is arbitrarily inserted “as an explanatory fix” wherever there is no provable scientific explanation. In other words, the claim is that such a divine Designer becomes the “God-of-the-gaps,” as if “God” were a magic word to use whenever men cannot figure things out. But what are the gaps referred to here?

 

*** g00 1/22 p. 9 Learning From Designs in Nature ***

Brilliant design leads us to the logical conclusion, says (Associate professor of biochemistry Michael Behe), “that life was designed by an intelligent agent.” Is it not reasonable, therefore, that this Agent also has a purpose, one that includes humans?

[Dustparticle]

When people get real deep into this, it get more confusing. Basically let us stick to Genesis 1:1.

[ChrisC]

4 hours ago, PonderThis said:

Look at the snowflake crystal. 

Which is many orders of magnitude simpler than any cell, and could probably be simulated on screen with a little maths and a relatively simple computer program.

These natural patterns are beautiful but do not compare at all.

Reminds me of:

(Conway’s Game of Life is interesting, and will create some repeating patterns from some very simple rules. But it takes an intelligent designer to create something more interesting - like a calculator for example.)

[Michał]

13 hours ago, jayrtom said:

Only theu forget the role of the inteligent mind that conducted the experiment... Miller himself

I like his experiment. It shows that we can by accident create four Lego bricks (and nothing more)
the only problem is they (pro-evolution scientists) think it means we can have a full featured legoland (including staff and customers) because of it.

 

Well, the facts are we can have four Lego bricks!  And that’s all to it. 

[Michał]

3 hours ago, jwhess said:

Br. Paul, I am a little confused as to your position on the natural world around us.  Do you have a doubt about the universe (and our Earth / Biology) being "designed by the Intelligent Creator?  Or are you arguing against the common "creationist" view of ID as noted in the Encyclopedia?  "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the for the existence of God"

 

Our position as Jehovah's servants is in favor of the idea of his Intelligent Design of the universe.

 

 

JW.ORG Frequently Asked Questions

How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses View Science?

(last paragraph)

 

…since the natural world reflects intelligent design, we share the view of many biologists, chemists, and others who have concluded that living things did not evolve through a process of random mutation and natural selection.

 

*** g 12/09 p. 7 Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? ***

What do you think? Which explanation best fits the fine-tuning observable in the cosmos? Purposeful design or mindless process?

 

*** lc p. 15 Who Designed It First? ***

If the copy requires an intelligent designer, what about the original? Really, who deserves more credit, the master engineer or the apprentice who imitates his designs?

▪ Does it seem logical to you to believe that the brilliant engineering evident in nature came about by accident?

▪ How would you answer the claim that life only appears to be designed?

 

*** w07 8/15 p. 3 Design Without a Designer? ***

     Some object that God is arbitrarily inserted “as an explanatory fix” wherever there is no provable scientific explanation. In other words, the claim is that such a divine Designer becomes the “God-of-the-gaps,” as if “God” were a magic word to use whenever men cannot figure things out. But what are the gaps referred to here?

 

*** g00 1/22 p. 9 Learning From Designs in Nature ***

Brilliant design leads us to the logical conclusion, says (Associate professor of biochemistry Michael Behe), “that life was designed by an intelligent agent.” Is it not reasonable, therefore, that this Agent also has a purpose, one that includes humans?

As far as my limited mind allows me to think:

• Intelligent Design is not scientific because it doesn’t use scientific method
• Intelligent Design while not being (methodolically) scientific is the only logical conclusion to the observable scientific facts

[jwhess]

2 minutes ago, Michał said:

As far as my limited mind allows me to think:

• Intelligent Design is not scientific because it doesn’t use scientific method
• Intelligent Design while not being (methodolically) scientific is the only logical conclusion to the observable scientific facts

I guess I look at it from a higher level or perspective (a beginning outside our physical scientific view)..

 

If Jehovah, although a spirit outside of our physical universe, originated all of the laws, regulations and attributes of science in our physical universe, then he originated the science.  We have not begun to decipher the intricacies of this knowledge.  He obviously uses the Laws he created to make the creation work and continue to function.  His "methods" may not be written down in human scientific terms but why should they be?

 

God shares with us what we need to know not ALL of what he knows.  To call this human insight on his vast knowledge "not being methodically scientific" seems a pretentious.  He either is or is not intelligent.  He either is or is not the designer.  If he his both...then what we we see, have or conceiver to be is the result of "Intelligent Design".  It is sort of like the science of Mathematical Geometry.  You start a problem with a set of given facts.  You postulate various actions and when the result is proven...QED.

 

My only question on this subject was whether we were trying to distinguish OUR belief in a Designer from the Creationists and their arguments.

[carlos]

9 hours ago, PonderThis said:

This is a bad analogy.  The actual hypothesis runs through a series of events.  

First the pro-eukaryotic cell ingests the foreign bacterium.  

The Bacterium is not digested and continues to perform it's functions and reproduce.

The pro-eukaryotic cell divides and some of the bacterial are in each cell.

This symbiotic relationship continues for a number of generations.

The environmental pressure of being inside the pro-eukaryotic cell facilitates change in the function of the bacterium and dependence.  In turn the presence of the bacterium and its waste material is an environmental pressure that the cell adapts to.

Eventually, over a long time the interdependence becomes paradoxical ( i.e. one cannot live with the other ) 

Also due to the long exposure through the course of time bacterium will naturally shed RNA material into the pro-eukaryotic cell leading to the adoption of some materials.

Actually, that is almost exactly the same as the example I gave, only "over a long time". It seems that impossible things become possible and even likely if they happen over many hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

 

When something is eaten, usually it is either ingested or excreted. In the rare cases where it is not (such as parasites), their DNA doesn't mix with that of the host. If you eat chicken or fish or beans, their DNA doesn't become part of yours. And the same happens with a cell. It doesn't happen in one day, and it doesn't happen over one million years. That's just a pseudoscientific fairytale. Any similarities between mitochondria and bacteria may be due to having the same Designer, who reused the same mechanisms.

 

9 hours ago, PonderThis said:

Look at the snowflake crystal.  It is a completely natural and well understood phenomena, it is beautiful to the human observer. Each snowflake is likely unique. Yet each is the result of random interaction of air, water, temperature that results in regular geometry and apparent design.  Randomness does not preclude design nor does design eliminate randomness.

I disagree. Snowflake crystals are the way they are because they were designed to be that way by an intelligent Designer. They don't just take those shapes by chance. They follow laws that are perfectly defined.

 

9 hours ago, PonderThis said:

However ID's answer is to simply attempt to undermine science through logical fallacy and then conclude 'It's a mystery"  If Scientists cannot demonstrate abiogenesis that is in no way proof of Intelligent Design. 

Again I don't view things like that. I don't agree with everything ID suggests but I very much agree with its main tenets. For example, that complexity proves there is a designer. Or that a gradual evolution is impossible with certain complex mechanisms. Either all its elements were produced at once with their current shapes and functions, or it would be useless and therefore wouldn't provide any evolutionary advantage. I find that logic crushing.

 

To say that scientists cannot prove abiogenesis is an understatement, they can't even come with a reasonable explanation of how life appeared from inanimate matter. To believe in it is just an act of faith. Yet we know life exists, so either it appeared by chance or was created. If there's no way it could have appeared by chance, then all we are left with is the other explanation. It was created. ID is only afraid to go further than that for fear of being accused of being "religious".

[Eejay]

3 hours ago, carlos said:

To believe in it is just an act of faith

I thought faith required evidence?

[Dages]

There is a difference in seeing a Teddy bear in a cloud and watching US presidents faces carved in Mount Rushmore.

One has a distinct pattern the other is a pareidolia in a random cloud.

 

Snowflakes aren't distinct patterns, they are redundant, out of the law of nature. They aren't enough to prove design.

Second after second, the positioning of atoms in a single cloud is also a infinitesimally low probability pattern. But it happens anyway without requiring direct design. That's just noise.

 

So in order to infer design, low probability and non redundancy are one step but we need more.

Like archeologists looking at rocks and finding ostraca. We have to look for design evidence.

 

Our Awake is nice and show us where to look 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Dages