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

[Ludwika]

14 hours ago, PonderThis said:

The 

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.  

I think the discussion among these scientists doesn't go far enough. They talk about tracing back from animate matter to inanimate material. But even so, there's still material of some kind, molecules, atoms, elements etc. 

However, the problem remains, where did these inanimate materials come from? Because it's now a generally accepted scientific truth that the universe had a beginning. What existed before that initial singularity? This they can't answer. The bible does. Before the beginning, there was nothing. That's the meaning of the Hebrew word for " create", " bara". God created the heavens and the earth, and life itself, from nothing.

No scientific explanation can bring matter into existence from nothing, building blocks are needed. And the bible even explains how it happened, Jehovah used energy to produce that matter. In Isaiah 40: 26, we have Einsteins equation stated in reverse order: lift up your eyes and see ( the material universe), it  came into existence because of Jehovah's dynamic energy. E=Mc2. 

 

[jayrtom]

 

9 hours 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

Does it not?

 

The scientific method (article) | Khan Academy

Quote

The scientific method

At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

Point 1

We observe that life exists

 

Point 2

How did it appear?

 

Pt 3

a) It appeared by chance

b) It was designed

 

Pt4

a) Prediction: In a primitive "soup" of molecules, that where in a favorable enviorenment, aminoacids formed by chance, then proteins, then RNA, then cells, voila... Life!

b) A designer created life, much like a designer created a car

 

Pt5

a) The primitive "soup" is carefully recreated, controled lightnings and radiations are shot into it.... No ife appeared

b) Tests are constantly made everywhere. Whenever there is functional complexity* there is a creator. Incidently the experiment in a) also serves the purpose of validating b)

 

Pt6

a) The results are not used to make new hypotheses or predictions. Keep waiting for an experience to have success >>> SCIENTIFIC METHOD BROKEN

b) The results validate the hypotesis, no need to further iterate

[jayrtom]

* It is important to understand what is functional complexity. Something may be rather complex but at the same time not carrying any specified function. We may say any rock formation is as complex and with the same probability of appearing randomly than the presidents carved in mount rushmore. In a mere complexity definition (shannon complexity) it is true. The probability of a certain number of rocks and dust form a specific formation is the same wheather that formation is gibberish or has a specified, functional pattern (in this case the functional pattern is the abbility to iddentify it with specific people). However, the mount rushmore has functional or specified complexity and the other rocks don't

A random chain of nucleotids may have a high complexity (for example, a non repeating pattern) but it hasn't the same functional complexity has a chain of nucleotids that constitute life's DNA

 

Since, wherever we observe functional complexity, we identify a designer, it's a logical, scientific conclusion to say that the DNA also had a designer

 

This is no pseudoscience, rather continuing to bypass step 6 above is the pseudo acience attitude

Edited November 26, 2021 by jayrtom

[carlos]

3 hours ago, jayrtom said:

A random chain of nucleotids may have a high complexity (for example, a non repeating pattern) but it hasn't the same functional complexity has a chain of nucleotids that constitute life's DNA

Another example that I find impressive is the leap from asexual to sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction only involves an individual splitting in two. Sexual reproduction requires a male and a female, with their reproductive systems perfectly formed and perfectly compatible with one another. There is no way that could evolve gradually. It had to appear all at once.

[Pjdriver]

DNA is information, coded information, like the 00011100101000 in a computer program or the alphabet that can convey instructions with arranged letters. Intelligent information within the DNA of each living being.

 

We have 2 choices.  

1- Believe that information like a blueprint (DNA) can come out of nothing.

or

2- Conclude that an intelligent mind created it.

 

Which seems more reasonable?

It’s funny how in normal everyday life people will always readily admit you can’t get intelligence out of no intelligence. But they throw that common sense away just on the subject of God versus Evolution. Inconsistant reasoning/logic.

[jayrtom]

24 minutes ago, Pjdriver said:

DNA is information, coded information, like the 00011100101000 in a computer program or the alphabet that can convey instructions with arranged letters. Intelligent information within the DNA of each living being.

 

We have 2 choices.  

1- Believe that information like a blueprint (DNA) can come out of nothing.

or

2- Conclude that an intelligent mind created it.

 

Which seems more reasonable?

It’s funny how in normal everyday life people will always readily admit you can’t get intelligence out of no intelligence. But they throw that common sense away just on the subject of God versus Evolution. Inconsistant reasoning/logic.

Welcome back Burt

 

[Michał]

On 11/26/2021 at 9:15 AM, jayrtom said:

Does it not?

 

The scientific method (article) | Khan Academy

Quote

You may be right. I though that because we cannot observe creation process - it was before we existed - we cannot validate ID by means of observation/experiments. The experiments reveal just life cannot originate by chance, so ID is a conclusion to observable facts and experiments made. However, I'm not en expert on it, so maybe scientific method can be applied in a way you pointed in your post.

[Dages]

47 minutes ago, Michał said:

You may be right. I though that because we cannot observe creation process - it was before we existed - we cannot validate ID by means of observation/experiments. The experiments reveal just life cannot originate by chance, so ID is a conclusion to observable facts and experiments made. However, I'm not en expert on it, so maybe scientific method can be applied in a way you pointed in your post.

Researches results can sometimes fit better with the ID ideas than (neo)darwinian ones.

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by Dages

[PonderThis]

On 11/26/2021 at 8:15 AM, Pjdriver said:

DNA is information, coded information, like the 00011100101000 in a computer program or the alphabet that can convey instructions with arranged letters. Intelligent information within the DNA of each living being.

 

We have 2 choices.  

1- Believe that information like a blueprint (DNA) can come out of nothing.

or

2- Conclude that an intelligent mind created it.

 

Which seems more reasonable?

This is an interesting attempt, but it tries to draw an conclusion using logical fallacy.  This asks the reader to rely on ones intuition by posing strawman argument coupled with a false dichotomy.  

 

1. No scientist claims DNA is derived from nothing. (the straw man ; The fact is the proposed Theory starts with basic atoms and and through a very long iterative process that takes place within multiple successive environments, and allows increasingly complex replicating molecules, eventually results in the RNA structure, which, in turn leads to DNA. All of this took place through the natural interaction of of the involved substances over and very long time.  The inputs are a) basic elements b) appropriate environments c) time d) natural chemical interaction)  *

2. If an intelligent mind is responsible for DNA there is nothing to say it isn't a product of random action. (the false dichotomy - Intelligence is not mutually exclusive of the random interaction nor is randomness evidence of 'lack' of intelligence.)

 

'Which seems more reasonable? " An appeal to intuition that attempts to reframe the issue as philosophical. The average person is not versed in the math of infinity or information theory and therefore has no basis for comprehending the relationship between information and intelligence much less applying theory or heuristics to this question.

 

This is not to say that Jehovah is not the designer.  My point is that in trying to support Jehovah as the creator it does us no favors to use language of ID ( a product of Creationism which is founded in false religion as a reaction and acceptance of Atheistic philosophy) nor use logical fallacy ( like that in the quoted paragraph) 

 

*It needs to be noted that there are vast amounts of 'unintelligent' information stored in DNA.  In fact it is the presence of the 'garbage' sections of DNA that are unexpressed that scientists are able to track the age ( in generations ) of a given DNA sample.  cosmic radiation regularly causes mutation which is repaired in the active portions of DNA, however in the unexpressed portion those mutations are NOT repaired, but get passed on to subsequent generations.  Older DNA will have fewer mutations in a very predictable ratio of time to number of mutations.   Additionally there are many active genes that remain unexpressed, like the human's ability to grow a tail, that are contrary to the idea of intelligence.  The point being that DNA is complex, but by no means a 'perfect' construction.

 

 

[Shawnster]

37 minutes ago, PonderThis said:

This is an interesting attempt, but it tries to draw an conclusion using logical fallacy.  This asks the reader to rely on ones intuition by posing strawman argument coupled with a false dichotomy.  

 

37 minutes ago, PonderThis said:

This is not to say that Jehovah is not the designer.  My point is that in trying to support Jehovah as the creator it does us no favors to use language of ID ( a product of Creationism which is founded in false religion as a reaction and acceptance of Atheistic philosophy) nor use logical fallacy ( like that in the quoted paragraph) 

 

37 minutes ago, PonderThis said:

'Which seems more reasonable? " An appeal to intuition that attempts to reframe the issue as philosophical. The average person is not versed in the math of infinity or information theory and therefore has no basis for comprehending the relationship between information and intelligence much less applying theory or heuristics to this question.

Paul, you seem very well educated and you appear to be well above the average person when it comes to this topic.  Many of us here do not understand the words you are using, but it is clear you are stating that these lines of reasonings you are replying to are not the way to go.

 

So, please, could you provide us with a positive approach instead?  Since it's clear we're not approaching this in a manner that will reach the heart of those who believe in evolution, and since we do not want to use strawman arguments or false dichotomies, how should we respond?  What have you found effective?  What convinces you?

 

Since iron sharpens iron, please help us to become sharper.

[PonderThis]

First a little little background.

Atheists in modern times have argued that Religion is an outgrowth of an attempt to explain natural mysteries, Why are stars where they are? Why does lighting strike? etc. that depends on the mystery of the unexplained.  During the Enlightenment there is a rise in thinking and the beginning of the Science. (IE the rational investigation of natural phenomena.)  Atheists therefore proposed that because Religion requires mystery and supernatural explanations the growth in the knowledge of man will eventually eliminate religion when it eliminates the 'mystery' of the natural world.  Later when Darwin proposed his Theory Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (note the word 'Evolution' does not appear in the title of his work ) Then atheists jumped on the band wagon.  Atheists proposed that if Darwin's Theory was correct then the story of Adam and Eve could not be true ( remember most Theologians argued the Bible's  is 100% literal and were even denying Geology -because Creation only took 6 days-  at the time ) In fact several Atheist writer held up Darwin's Theory as a nail in the coffin of Deism ( it should be noted that Atheists were mostly dismissive of non Christian gods because we are discussing European philosophy ) At this point it should be clear that the actual argument taking place was not one of Science vs Belief in God, Rather it was Philosophy of Atheism vs Belief in God.  However popular Theologians took the bait, and instead of argue the actual issue they began to try to undermine Science.  For the last 150+ years Atheists have been giggling to themselves because they started an argument with Theology and duped Theologians into attacking Science instead ( think of that silly trick where you reach around someone's back and tap the opposite shoulder and they turn the wrong way).

 

So the first step to understanding how to think about Abiogenesis, the Theory of Evolution ( as it is know colloquially ), Cosmologic Origin is that none of these Scientific endeavors are trying to argue against the presence/existence of God.

The second step is to understand the reason more than 95% of biologist, physicists, cosmologist and astronomers are atheist or agnostic. This is due to the poor conceptualization of God that Religions present. Most Religions present God as a Supernatural being who causes supernatural events that have no logical sense or purpose, are outright cruel, or are ridiculously at odds with facts.

The Third step is to establish the purpose of any given argument and argue in good faith.  If we are trying to establish Jehovah as Creator and we can only do that by tearing down something ( in psychosocial interaction we call this negging ) it shows both a poor motive and a lack of real backing.  On the other hand if we argue in an additive/constructive manner it shows good intent.

Fourth, research the origins of any arguments proposed as well as whether these ideas have been presented before.  This will help the writer from appearing foolish ( for instance the example of the eye used in literature as a case of irreducible complexity was debunked by Darwin himself and later in the 70's through research, but is still used in ID literature to this day.)

Fifth, use care in the language used to promote your ideas.  For example, ID is the product of false religion and deceitful representation of Science as well as men who make fraudulent claims.  If you associate your self with this group through your language, even accidently, your reader will assume you are part of said group and your statements will fall on deaf ears.

Sixth, avoid the common logical fallacies  https://www.pesec.no/24-most-common-logical-fallacies/

Finally state your observations and your reflections and appeal to people's rationality and not their credulity or emotion. And only comment on subjects which you are sure you have complete information from a neutral or primary source (i.e want to talk about science? read a scientific journal or paper. Remember WBTS did not abandon a version of Young Earth Creation until the late 80's, more than 100 years after the science of paleontology established life as having existed for more than 100 million years.) 

 

Example Outline:

Is there a simple cell?  
Point out the amazing structures in cells and show how there are many apparent paradoxes. Cover the current research and Theories that are being worked on.  Agree that incredible complexity of cellular life, even simple cells, appears to be incalculable and defies the imagination, as does so much of the universe.  Show that whether the Theories are correct or not the sheer magnitude and complexity reflect the wisdom of the Creator.

 

You will note that this outline does not try to tear down nor does it try to undermine anything without evidence.  In addition the only thing the reader can argue is whether or not they agree/accept the writers conclusion. It also avoids the language of ID and sticks with the Biblical language of Wisdom, Love, Justice, and Power.

 

If you want to comment on evolution. Do lots of research and do NOT use any ID sources as they are notoriously deceptive. My advice is to not even try to undermine evolution, unless you can propose an alternate theory for whatever phenomena you are addressing. If you just conclude 'Divine Intervention necessary' you have fallen into the 'God of the Gaps trap'

 

[ChrisC]

We have had articles about ‘junk DNA’ by the way:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=junk+dna&p=par&r=occ

[PonderThis]

17 minutes ago, ChrisC said:

We have had articles about ‘junk DNA’ by the way:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=junk+dna&p=par&r=occ

This article is not entirely accurate mostly because it is 18 years old. 1 The assumption the 'junk' DNA had no purpose was not rooted in 'Darwinism' as Darwinism does not dialog with genomics, rather is was rooted in a misunderstanding of how genes work and predated the Human Genome Project, In particular Scientists discovered that 98% of genes are 'non-coding' and assumed this corresponded to 'having no effect'. Sub-sequent studies have varying estimates of percentage of genes that are 'coding' ranging as high as 80%, however it is understood that significant portions called Pseudo-Genes do not all have measurable function.   2. Not all 'junk' DNA is vital to the function of a given organism.  Direct experiments with yeast proved this in 2008( 3 years after the article ) 3. Molecular biologists now understand that most of the DNA strand contributes to the production of proteins and that the relative levels of the proteins has a large effect on development and cellular reproduction. 4. there are significant portions of the Genome that are classified as Psuedo-Genes because they imperfect copies of functional genes. They are still considered 'junk' DNA but it has been observed that mutation to Pseudo-Genes usually don't impact the function of the Chromosome and, as a consequence, display a faster rate of evolution* than the functional genes. ( it should be noted that the actual cause and possible effects of the accelerated genetic drift in pseudo-genes is not settled ) 
 

Here is a link to a study of Chromosome 16 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03187#Sec3

in which the researchers identify an excellent breakdown of the genetics and you can read what the actual science reporting looks like. The section covering pseudo-genes (colloquially called 'junk DNA') is in the 'Gene Catalog'

 

*'evolution' in this use refers to the observed phenomena and not the Theory of Evolution which posits that the observed phenomena, over time, is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.

 

[Ludwika]

5 hours ago, PonderThis said:

First a little little background.

Atheists in modern times have argued that Religion is an outgrowth of an attempt to explain natural mysteries, Why are stars where they are? Why does lighting strike? etc. that depends on the mystery of the unexplained.  During the Enlightenment there is a rise in thinking and the beginning of the Science. (IE the rational investigation of natural phenomena.)  Atheists therefore proposed that because Religion requires mystery and supernatural explanations the growth in the knowledge of man will eventually eliminate religion when it eliminates the 'mystery' of the natural world.  Later when Darwin proposed his Theory Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (note the word 'Evolution' does not appear in the title of his work ) Then atheists jumped on the band wagon.  Atheists proposed that if Darwin's Theory was correct then the story of Adam and Eve could not be true ( remember most Theologians argued the Bible's  is 100% literal and were even denying Geology -because Creation only took 6 days-  at the time ) In fact several Atheist writer held up Darwin's Theory as a nail in the coffin of Deism ( it should be noted that Atheists were mostly dismissive of non Christian gods because we are discussing European philosophy ) At this point it should be clear that the actual argument taking place was not one of Science vs Belief in God, Rather it was Philosophy of Atheism vs Belief in God.  However popular Theologians took the bait, and instead of argue the actual issue they began to try to undermine Science.  For the last 150+ years Atheists have been giggling to themselves because they started an argument with Theology and duped Theologians into attacking Science instead ( think of that silly trick where you reach around someone's back and tap the opposite shoulder and they turn the wrong way).

 

So the first step to understanding how to think about Abiogenesis, the Theory of Evolution ( as it is know colloquially ), Cosmologic Origin is that none of these Scientific endeavors are trying to argue against the presence/existence of God.

The second step is to understand the reason more than 95% of biologist, physicists, cosmologist and astronomers are atheist or agnostic. This is due to the poor conceptualization of God that Religions present. Most Religions present God as a Supernatural being who causes supernatural events that have no logical sense or purpose, are outright cruel, or are ridiculously at odds with facts.

The Third step is to establish the purpose of any given argument and argue in good faith.  If we are trying to establish Jehovah as Creator and we can only do that by tearing down something ( in psychosocial interaction we call this negging ) it shows both a poor motive and a lack of real backing.  On the other hand if we argue in an additive/constructive manner it shows good intent.

Fourth, research the origins of any arguments proposed as well as whether these ideas have been presented before.  This will help the writer from appearing foolish ( for instance the example of the eye used in literature as a case of irreducible complexity was debunked by Darwin himself and later in the 70's through research, but is still used in ID literature to this day.)

Fifth, use care in the language used to promote your ideas.  For example, ID is the product of false religion and deceitful representation of Science as well as men who make fraudulent claims.  If you associate your self with this group through your language, even accidently, your reader will assume you are part of said group and your statements will fall on deaf ears.

Sixth, avoid the common logical fallacies  https://www.pesec.no/24-most-common-logical-fallacies/

Finally state your observations and your reflections and appeal to people's rationality and not their credulity or emotion. And only comment on subjects which you are sure you have complete information from a neutral or primary source (i.e want to talk about science? read a scientific journal or paper. Remember WBTS did not abandon a version of Young Earth Creation until the late 80's, more than 100 years after the science of paleontology established life as having existed for more than 100 million years.) 

 

Example Outline:

Is there a simple cell?  
Point out the amazing structures in cells and show how there are many apparent paradoxes. Cover the current research and Theories that are being worked on.  Agree that incredible complexity of cellular life, even simple cells, appears to be incalculable and defies the imagination, as does so much of the universe.  Show that whether the Theories are correct or not the sheer magnitude and complexity reflect the wisdom of the Creator.

 

You will note that this outline does not try to tear down nor does it try to undermine anything without evidence.  In addition the only thing the reader can argue is whether or not they agree/accept the writers conclusion. It also avoids the language of ID and sticks with the Biblical language of Wisdom, Love, Justice, and Power.

 

If you want to comment on evolution. Do lots of research and do NOT use any ID sources as they are notoriously deceptive. My advice is to not even try to undermine evolution, unless you can propose an alternate theory for whatever phenomena you are addressing. If you just conclude 'Divine Intervention necessary' you have fallen into the 'God of the Gaps trap'

 

Well I'm not a scientist, but over years what I've noticed is people generally don't come to know Jehovah because of needing a degree of some sort to understand the issue. And we don't need a degree to teach the truth either. Note Luke 10:21. Of course some love the science, are convinced by it. I find it fascinating myself. Scientific discoveries can certainly add to our faith, can be awe inspiring.

But what appeals to most people  are things like, while we can be amazed by the beauty of images from the Hubble telescope, we actually do need a version of"the God of the gaps" so to speak, because we can look through the most powerful telescope for as long as we like, but that won't tell us who made the stars we're looking at, how did they come into existence?

For that information we need the bible. Jehovah invites us to look up and see, and ask ourselves that very question.

If we want to convince someone of this truth, in fact science alone often isn't enough. That's where a combination of the scientific truths in the bible and the provable, historical fulfillment of prophecy are such powerful allies. 

It's wonderful to have scientific facts at our fingertips, and I personally enjoy looking into such things, but that's not necessarily going to help a person develop a knowledge and love for God. Though it helps. Who put into place what most call the species barrier? Does it's existence help or hinder the theory of evolution? If it doesn't hinder evolutionary progress, why do scientists need to use genetic engineering to overcome it? 

Questions like these make a person think, without overwhelming them and making them feel embarrassed or put on the spot. 

The bible truly is " up to the job" if we use it skillfully.

 

[Mykyl]

It’s not our job to disprove evolution. Our job is to show evidence that Jehovah is a loving creator. That there is an answer that satisfies those who are searching and yearning for truth. 
 

We point out through articles like this, potential things for each individual to think about. Then it’s up to them. As the article says. “You decide”
 

If Jehovah sees something in them, he will draw them to him. 
Otherwise don’t waste your time. 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Mykyl

[Dages]

Junk DNA is junk theory. Our article is old but research has been proving more and more than Junk DNA isn't junk.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1934590921003842?via%3Dihub

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/10/18/so-called-junk-dna-plays-critical-role-in-mammalian-development/

https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/pdf/S1934-5909(21)00384-2.pdf

etc...

 

That's obviously expected with Intelligent Design.

[Mykyl]

There is no point arguing science as the scientists don’t all agree either. 😊

Definitely not a united group of individuals. Lol.  
 

What I mean by that is one scientist may agree with some scientific claim we drag out but another may disagree with it.
So it doesn’t always help to go down that route. 
 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Mykyl

[bohemian]

10 hours ago, PonderThis said:

Fourth, research the origins of any arguments proposed as well as whether these ideas have been presented before.  This will help the writer from appearing foolish ( for instance the example of the eye used in literature as a case of irreducible complexity was debunked by Darwin himself and later in the 70's through research, but is still used in ID literature to this day.)

Also keep up with the facts.  The development of the eye is a case in point.

This has in no way been debunked by Darwin nor later research. The so-called evolutionary development of the eye from a ‘light-sensitive depression’ to a fully functioning complex organ is a ‘just-so’ story which happens to suit those who want to believe in gradualism and Darwin’s natural selection. 

 

There is absolutely no evidence (none, zero, nada) to support abiogenesis - this is why even well-respected scientists (Hoyle, Crick and others) have speculated that life was ‘seeded’ from elsewhere in the universe (by aliens?)

 

Of course, Darwin knew nothing of the genome and later attempts to create the neo-Darwinian synthesis rely totally on random mutations being acted on by natural selection. The maths totally rules this out in terms of the number of mutations required and the opportunities for these to occur (and of course they must be advantageous mutations - while we know that deleterious ones far outnumber useful ones.

 

The universe’s ‘fine-tuning’ is another scientific fact which has caused some atheist scientists to change their minds and for others to clutch at totally unobservable ideas and theories such as the multiverse and string theory.  

 

If I sit in my armchair and look around my living-room I can see nothing that was not designed - my chair, floorcovering, tv, radio, hifi, table etc even the clothes I am wearing. Am I to believe that the most complex thing in the room -me - was not designed?

 

 

 

[PonderThis]

1 hour ago, bohemian said:

Also keep up with the facts.  The development of the eye is a case in point.

This has in no way been debunked by Darwin nor later research. The so-called evolutionary development of the eye from a ‘light-sensitive depression’ to a fully functioning complex organ is a ‘just-so’ story which happens to suit those who want to believe in gradualism and Darwin’s natural selection. 

Please reread my commend.. I stated "for instance the example of the eye used in literature as a case of irreducible complexity" has been debunked.  The eye has is demonstrably reducible in complexity and in some animals different eyes will have different levels of complexity.  This does not mean that biologists have figured it out or that they know the evolutionary path of the eye.  The argument of irreducible complexity has been shown to be a red herring as it is not possible to prove.  Mathematician William Dembski of the Discovery Institute had to create a new mathematical concept 'Special Complexity' in order to create a proof and in the end he fails as his proof also implies that any genetic drift, even that caused by selective breeding, is impossible.  Of course selective breeding can and does produce changes in the genome of the subject, so his proof fails the empirical test.

 

1 hour ago, bohemian said:

There is absolutely no evidence (none, zero, nada) to support abiogenesis - this is why even well-respected scientists (Hoyle, Crick and others) have speculated that life was ‘seeded’ from elsewhere in the universe (by aliens?)

This is simply not true.  it is true there is little physical evidence.  The famous 'primordial soup' experiment, while overall negative produced very good evidence in the form of the production of several precursor substances. Additionally now that fossil evidence indicates single cell life billions of years old and occurs in deep and hot geological places it turns out that there is more environments on Earth that are favorable to early precursor and amino formation.  Even still abiogenesis is mostly hypotheses at this point.  The seeding is not from 'aliens'. It is currently speculated that moons like Enceladus could be the incubator for early substances which were then transported via celestial impact to earth.  It seems tenuous but there are lots of conditions that would have existed in the early solar system than might have facilitated this. Again this idea is still at the stage of speculation and hypothesis.

 

1 hour ago, bohemian said:

Of course, Darwin knew nothing of the genome and later attempts to create the neo-Darwinian synthesis rely totally on random mutations being acted on by natural selection. The maths totally rules this out in terms of the number of mutations required and the opportunities for these to occur (and of course they must be advantageous mutations - while we know that deleterious ones far outnumber useful ones.

This is just wrong.  The math does not rule this out.  The only Mathematician who has come close to doing this is William Dembski , and his proof is fatally flawed.  (This article give a great explanation of why https://ncse.ngo/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembski *warning-this website is published specifically to disabuse misconceptions about science that are spread by the ID and anti-climate change crowd).  (note: this is in no way implying Dembski is a bad Mathematician or acting disingenuously.  He is in fact brilliant and well versed in statistics and information theory)

Also the presumption that mutations 'must be advantageous' is also wrong.  One example is the Sickle Cell gene which greatly contributes to the ability to make it to child bearing age, but results in a lower life expectation and reduced fitness overall.  Thus a mutation which lowers fitness of the organism, increases its ability to be passed on to future generations.

2 hours ago, bohemian said:

The universe’s ‘fine-tuning’ is another scientific fact which has caused some atheist scientists to change their minds and for others to clutch at totally unobservable ideas and theories such as the multiverse and string theory.  

This is a completely unrelated subject. 'Fine tuning' is NOT a fact.  It is a concept DERIVED from facts. The Facts are there are 5 or 6 constants (some versions have more)  that if they were even the tiniest bit different either life or the universe would not exist.  'Fine Tuning' is the subjective interpretation of those facts used to imply that the universe, as we know it, is a special case. From a Biblical perspective the subjective interpretation is that it shows intent of a Wise Creator to eventually create life and humans. However these constants are no more significant than any other constant like pi.
As a side note there are a few problems with this excerpt.
The author is using a derogatory image (clutching at 'unobservable ideas') in order to create an sense of desperation in order to disparage the 'atheist scientists'.  Unfortunately for the author Multiverse Theory supports the idea of 'Fine Tuning'. If there is no Multiverse then, logically, those constants are NOT tuned, they just are simply observed phenomena. Also String Theory has nothing to do with fine tuning or Multiverse. String Theory was a multi-dimension model used to attempt to explain quantum mechanics. Also 'unobservable ideas' doesn't even make sense.  Do they mean 'ideas of unobservable phenomena'? Like Quantum Field or Chaos Theory, or the Dark Matter/Energy Hypothesis?

This is sentence is obviously and attempted jab at Steven Hawking (and others like him)- known for his atheism and support of the multi-verse hypothesis. He did not 'clutch' at ideas. Right or wrong he was a very deep thinker.

 

3 hours ago, bohemian said:

If I sit in my armchair and look around my living-room I can see nothing that was not designed - my chair, floorcovering, tv, radio, hifi, table etc even the clothes I am wearing. Am I to believe that the most complex thing in the room -me - was not designed?

  This is a rephrasing of Paul's argument. Having a designer is fine.  However it tells us nothing about the process by which the 'designed' objects are built. Again, Scientists are trying to answer a completely different question than the Bible does.

[Lance]

It seems we have gotten off track on this conversation…

it is supposed to be about appreciation for the latest Awake article on creation .. not our personal theories  and debates on the exact process of creation which is always a moving target.. 

Let’s not make this a personal soapbox for our own particular perspective. 
As a JW forum we believe whole heartedly that “ in the beginning God created”  how, when, he exactly did this we have yet to really begin to understand. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Lance

[bohemian]

1 hour ago, PonderThis said:

This is a rephrasing of Paul's argument. Having a designer is fine.  However it tells us nothing about the process by which the 'designed' objects are built. Again, Scientists are trying to answer a completely different question than the Bible does.

Just this one point as I think we are getting nowhere.

Having a designer is fine - I agree - what it does tell us is that the designed objects came from a preexisting mind.  None of the items in my living-room assembled themselves. Atheists would deny this with respect to a living being and attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion they wish to promote.

 

On a personal note, I find your comments in this thread are an attempt to discredit creation and that Jehovah created life, and that worries me and I struggle to understand your motives in doing this.

1 hour ago, PonderThis said:

The famous 'primordial soup' experiment, while overall negative produced very good evidence in the form of the production of several precursor substances.

Rubbish. Not good evidence at all. The Miller-Urey experiment produced some aminoacids - a far cry from ‘precursors’ - which were immediately broken down. A racemic mixture of amino acids is not what is required.

There is also much doubt about whether the early atmosphere was reducing or not.

[PonderThis]

On 11/25/2021 at 12:45 PM, jwhess said:

ittle 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?

Sorry I missed this earlier.

 

My point is the last sentence that you quoted from me.

"In order for there to be ID there is no requirement that the process be mysterious or supernatural."

 

[bohemian]

11 minutes ago, PonderThis said:

Sorry I missed this earlier.

 

My point is the last sentence that you quoted from me.

"In order for there to be ID there is no requirement that the process be mysterious or supernatural."

 

If there is ID [Intelligent Design] - what or who is the Intelligent Designer?

[Shawnster]

53 minutes ago, bohemian said:

Just this one point as I think we are getting nowhere.

 

Let's get back on topic now, please.  

 

The topic is about appreciating this issue of Awake.  

 

If someone wants, feel free to start a new topic about evolution vs. creation.

[vern]

Yes....