Conversation with an Atheist

A discussion I had yesterday and today (November 9/10, 2023) with an atheist. Here is (some of) my conversations with him.

"You, whoever you are, use argument ad hominem. Sad. But you asked for my sources. Here is one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bss0RXPsBuQ&t=535s

"Interestingly, this renowned scientist made no appeal to what the Bible teaches for his defense that a Creator exists. There are many scientists who argue for intelligent design for creation of life, yes, creation of life by a personal Creator. The way some of them make their argument is by exposing the absurdity of the only alternative: undirected, stochastic motions of molecules in some primordial, chemical-laden soup exposed to an early-earth hostile environment--or if, as some atheists prefer their version of a just-so story, then ready-made biochemical building blocks supposedly transported to earth's surface via a meteorite.

"But protagonists for creation of life need not become initially engaged with atheistic detractors into their (the protagonists') defending the Biblical portrait of its God (Jehovah) as championed in its pages. That can come later, perhaps. No, they have only to show that the concept of a Creator does not violate scientific fact, although it does contradict the dogma 'scientism,' which has it that all that is Real is explicable per the scientific method. That is patently false dogma. Moreover, there is logical fallacy in attacking the concept of creation on the basis of a (dubious) interpretation of what the atheists think that the Bible says about Jehovah, for it is like saying, 'So-and-So DID NOT build yon lovely house because So-and-So, as we have learned, is a dangerous scoundrel.' First, prove that So-and-So didn't build the house in question, which is the main point in contention, and when once you prove that, then you need go no further, for how was it ever imagined that So-and-So's moral character necessarily had any bearing for establishing that he could not have built the house? But if it can be shown that there is no other credible, reasonable, non absurd explanation but that So-and-So built that house, then the antagonist's contention that the builder of the house is immoral becomes suspect, too. I simply don't want to put the cart before the horse.

"At this stage of the argument with an atheist, the logical focus is on what science and other disciplines (e.g., Information Theory) can bring to the table. Now, I am convinced there is a Creator. But some atheists become atheistic because they are certain that those who believe in a Creator don't take seriously the contention that has it that the Bible is controverted by science, written history, archaeology, and psychology, and that the Bible's apologists are hypocrites who hide their nefarious and dangerous deeds. For sake of logically coherent argumentation, stay on one side or other of the fence: either discuss science, or else if you have a beef against the portrait of God presented in the Bible, then we can commence discussion with that. But we need not begin by conflating the issues, as would be done by someone who imagines that (s)he has scored points against the very concept of a Creator's existence merely because the antagonist imagines (s)he has succeeded in shaming a particular portrait of Him as presented in the Bible.

"Deists--at least those deists of generations past and who were involved in fashioning a Constitutional, representative democracy for a federal government of the United States of America--did not conclude on the basis of reason that there is no Creator. So, would you have succeeded in disabusing their mind of belief in a Creator should you have commenced with a discussion of what you imagine to be errors in the Bible? Your entire approach would have been a non sequitur. If I had been the contemporary of men such as Thomas Jefferson (he objected, among other things, to the concept that the Creator was a Triune God) or Benjamin Franklin, then why should I have wasted our time together by seeking to limit discussion to something we were already agreed upon? But if their deism was prompted by their taking offense to certain ways they were expected to confess their belief in God, and that they were supposed to accept without question what they imagined was in the Bible--or what they were taught by clergymen to believe about the Bible when the clergy of their day and age and on up until our day had no convincing explanations for why the God of the Bible, in Whom they were supposed to believe, could tolerate evil, disease, and death--, then I am prepared to discuss that thing offensive to them, too. I can gladly share the Bible's own defense of the God it champions. But anytime there are folks who think that science has made the very concept of a Creator to be nonsensical regardless of whatever (they imagine) the Bible says, then I am ready to discuss that with them, too, and to limit the discussion to what they themselves should have to logically hold, namely, that it is their scientism that makes irrelevant to commencement of our dialogue whatever the Bible teaches. And only when they feel that dialogue has reached an impasse via that tact, and if they want to do so, then we may consider what the Bible itself does teach and what it does not teach. If they have harbored some offense against the very concept of God as the Bible presents Him, then maybe they will come to have a mind disabused of their prejudice against the Bible."

YOUTUBE.COM

Molecules Don't Care About Life! (2023 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith)

What does the sc

Is Horizontal Gene Transfer a Naturalistic Cause of Speciation for Existence of Fundamentally Dissimilar Species?

I have found in "Bard AI" by Google a new sparring partner. After much debate with Bard, he made the inglorious--"inglorious" from an evolutionist's POV--admission you see below respecting the much-touted role that horizontal gene transfer (HGT) supposedly played in the speciation of life forms after the supposed abiogenetic appearance of a universal ancestor, supposedly an organism that became the progenitive root of the biosphere. It is important to keep in mind that models of HGT for their supposed role in the origin of extra-bacterial speciation are not models based on empirical evidence yielded by experimentation in accordance with the scientific method: HGT models are based on the existence of pre-existing DNA, and where the HGT model is scientifically demonstrated, it shows itself as a truly remarkable way that a bacterium might obtain adaptive advantage for the persistence of its species, which is by its using pre-existing genes acquired from its extra-cellular environment.

The observation that there exist DNA sequences from bacteria similar to or the same as sequences in the DNA of plants merely demonstrates the reasonableness in the Creator's decision to make economic use of the same sequences of DNA even though they would then be found in fundamentally dissimilar life forms. This is what we would logically expect the Creator to do whenever he wanted a similarity of function among fundamentally different life forms. He would then accomplish the same DNA sequences in those different life forms by specially creating in those different species the genetic code that should have to be inherited by all the descendants of the species' progenitor(s). On the other hand, a real HGT event is by definition a naturally repeatable event and therefore is predictably a discoverable event. Even so, it is not one known per the scientific method to be one occurring between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. (See footnote 1.) Regardless of how and when HGT events occur, they are by definition the transference of pre-existing DNA and are not involved in the creation of new DNA sequences theretofore nowhere already in existence somewhere in the biosphere.

So, here is what Bard AI admitted:

"Models for genomic evolution dependent on HGT are not derived per the scientific method. The scientific method is a process for acquiring knowledge that has characterized modern science since the 17th century. It involves making observations, formulating a hypothesis, conducting an experiment to test the hypothesis, and drawing conclusions based on the results of the experiment.

"Models for genomic evolution dependent on HGT are not derived using this method. Instead, they are based on assumptions about how HGT might occur and how it might affect genomic evolution. These assumptions are not necessarily supported by evidence, and the models cannot be tested experimentally.

"For example, one common assumption in models of HGT is that HGT occurs at random. However, there is evidence that HGT is not random, but is more likely to occur between certain types of organisms. Additionally, models of HGT often assume that HGT has a significant impact on genomic evolution. However, the evidence for this is mixed. Some studies have found that HGT has a significant impact on genomic evolution, while others have found that its impact is relatively small.

"Overall, models for genomic evolution dependent on HGT are not derived using the scientific method and are based on assumptions that are not necessarily supported by evidence. Therefore, it is not true that these models are derived per the scientific method."

_______________________________________________

Footnote 1. "Bacteria do not only exchange genes with other bacteria and with viruses (bacteriophages), but also acquire genes horizontally from eukaryotic source organisms. For example, a hemoglobin sequence from the bacterium Vitreoscilla is most closely related to plant leghemoglobins, and has been suggested to promote bacterial survival in oxygen-limited environments." (https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/12/6351/5491744#)

It should be noted that the statement "a hemoglobin sequence from the bacterium Vitreoscilla is most closely related to plant leghemoglobins" reports a fact, but the suggestion that the fact is owing to an HGT event is not science (see pertinent comment about hemoglobin below); so, what can reasonably and alternatively explain the phenomenon? A creative act of God can explain it. The reasonable conclusion is that the Creator made use of the same genetic information (same DNA sequences) when suitable for similar functions in different species. True, the statement that the phenomenon reported immediately above is a phenomenon owing to a "creative act of God" is not science, either; however, science does not contravene that statement. Its alternative, however, is not only unscientific but is also the postulation that mindless, undirected processes can be responsible for the exquisite complexity of an organism's genetic code.

About hemoglobin, we find this report in Wikipedia about the protein:

"Leghemoglobin has close chemical and structural similarities to [hemoglobin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin), and, like hemoglobin, is red in colour. It was originally thought that the [heme](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heme) prosthetic group for plant leghemoglobin was provided by the bacterial symbiont within symbiotic root nodules.[1][2] However, subsequent work shows that the plant host strongly expresses [entirely nativistic code resident in the nucleosome in the nodule's cells for] heme biosynthesis genes within nodules, and that activation of those genes correlates with leghemoglobin gene expression in developing nodules." (Bracketed material only in this paragraph is mine, Al Kidd's.)

Thus the hemoglobin protein present in fundamentally different life forms is not scientifically shown to be the result of an HGT event. The similarity in those hemoglobin proteins under review here is reasonably argued to be the intended, purposefully designed results of separate creative acts by God who made "tweaked" use of them for basically some of the same DNA information that should be inherited, information that he *especially* created for the presence of the hemoglobin proteins in the fundamentally different forms of life in view here. 

_______________________________________________ 

Readers of my blog know that I do not make it possible for them to offer comments on anything I have posted. My blog is not a debate forum. However, on another forum, I thought it worthwhile for me to respond to a workmate who offered me a lighthearted comment about the substance of my research, and I felt I owed her a response.  I made the following response to her:

"First of all, thanks for reading at least something of my post. The biological jargon is readily explained by Googling the terms and phrases. The bottom line is that HGT is not the refuge some evolutionists (namely, those among them who know that genetic mutations are not at the root--not the origin, not the cause--of all speciation) seek; it is not scientifically demonstrated to be the cause either immediately or proximally for all speciation after the supposed abiogenetic appearance of unicellular life (microbiota). And because God lives, then atheistic materialists (evolutionists) are whistling past the graveyard because it is according to their wish that they deliberately have willed themselves not to recognize that a Supreme Being (the God of the Bible) lives. How convenient it seems for them when they declare that there is no God who can and will hold them accountable and unexcused from punishment by him for what in the end may well amount to their unrepented, idolatrous denial of him: they may ever incorrigibly refuse to live according to God's will for all men until it has become too late and psychologically impossible for them to repent. Evolutionists imagine that they have found in life forms here on earth a reasonable basis for them to declare "God does not exist," when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Please read Romans 1:18-25. Jill, here is excellent information in non-technical jargon; just click on this link: 

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/origin-of-life-5-questions/

First-century Christians Likely Ate Pork

Insight on the Scriptures, vol. I (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988) pp. 1172-3), under article entry "IDOLS, MEATS OFFERED TO," reminds us that first-century Christians had to give careful regard to the circumstances for when they might choose to eat some meat from an animal, part of which had been consumed in a sacrifice at a pagan temple, the more so when eating the other part of the meat while either in the company of unknowledgeable unbelievers or in the company of those newly converted to Christianity. What might some of those circumstances be? They are set forth in the article referred to above, and an excerpt of which follows here:

"Under inspiration Paul provided the Corinthian Christians with timely information to aid them in making the correct decisions. Although “an idol is nothing,” it would not be advisable for a Christian to go to an idol temple to eat meat (even though his eating was not part of a religious ceremony), because he could thereby be giving spiritually weak observers the wrong impression. Such observers might conclude that the Christian was worshiping the idol, and they could be stumbled by this. It could lead such weaker ones to the point of actually eating meats sacrificed to idols in religious ceremonies, in direct violation of the decree of the governing body. There was also the danger that the Christian eater would violate his own conscience and yield to idol worship.​—1Co 8:1-13.

"Since the ceremonial offering of meats to idols produced no change in the meat, the Christian could, however, with a good conscience buy meat from a market that received some of its meat from religious temples. This meat had lost its “sacred” significance. It was just as good as any other meat, and the Christian was therefore not under obligation to make inquiry respecting its origin.​—1Co 10:25, 26.

Furthermore, the Christian, upon being invited to a meal, did not have to make inquiry concerning the source of the meat but could eat it with a good conscience. If, however, an individual present at the meal were to remark that the meat had been “offered in sacrifice,” then the Christian would refrain from eating it to avoid stumbling others.​—1Co 10:27-29."

No, it would not per se--and not necessarily--be an act of idolatry for a Christian to eat some meat while seated in a dining room in a pagan temple even though some other part of the animal's flesh had just been offered in sacrifice to a pagan god/goddess, which was an act usually performed on an altar at or near the temple's entrance. It was not advisable for a Christian to do such a thing because an unbeliever at the temple might assume that the Christian there had ordered up the sacrifice, and was now eating his communion part of the sacrificial victim. True, dining rooms in a pagan temple usually accommodated celebrants of a cultic sacrifice, but not necessarily. At times, the banquet rooms served as a place where secular business might be conducted, and where acquaintances might meet for various other reasons, as is done today by those who reserve a restaurant's banquet room. 

So, what has all this to do with whether or not there is a likelihood that some first-century Christians qua Christians had eaten pork? Consider the research by Susan Cole, Associate Professor and Chair in the Department of Classics in the University at Buffalo New York's College of Arts and Sciences. An article that reviewed Cole's research was presented by Patricia Donovan and was released on August 16, 2000. Donovan (whose article titled Hog Wild in Athens B.C.E.! Role of Pigs in Social and Religious Life Provides Insights into Ancient Greece) is now retired from University Communications, University at Buffalo. Excerpts of her review are as follows: 

"Pork may be today's "other white meat," but when it comes to hog heaven, we can't hold a candle to the ancient Greeks.... 

"In Greece, for instance, the pig served as a sacrificial animal, a votive offering to gods, especially those who preferred swine to a chicken or a hecatomb of oxen. Since protein was an important food group but less available than grains and vegetables, it was the rare pig whose entire self was consumed in the sacrificial flame. Instead, since that meat went bad quickly, it was important that freshly killed animals be distributed for food as efficiently as possible.

"This was one function of the ubiquitous Greek cults, relatively small circles of individuals united by a particular religious devotion or practice that met to offer sacrifices on behalf of their patron deities....

"When a cult presented an animal for temple sacrifice, only part of the sacrifice was consumed by fire. That part was for the god. Although there were exceptions, the rest was usually shared by the sanctuary attendants and members of the sacrificing cult....

"Cole points out that meat distribution, particularly of a large animal like a sow or a boar, frequently took place at a sacrificial meal -- a fairly large dinner party -- held for members of the cult that had purchased the animal used in the sacrifice. In fact, Cole says, ancient dinner menus and records from sanctuaries and cults have survived and clearly indicate the importance of pork as a valued source of protein."--News Center, University at Buffalo. 

If, then, a non-Christian businessman assured his Christian business associate that for the sake of convenience he and other business associates could conclude a business deal over a meal in a temple dining room, but that there would be no cultic rituals participated by any in attendance, then the Christian might feel no compunction about attending and paying for a meal at the temple. True, his conscience might not send up a red flag against his attendance, but what about the conscience of others? Suppose a newly converted man stumbled? Suppose that unbelievers consider the Christian's behavior to be a betrayal of his faith? Suppose that the Christian immersed in the idolatrous hubbub occurring at the temple let himself become enticed to wander off into giving some form of worship to the temple's patron deity? So, the Christian shows wisdom when he refuses to eat a meal inside a temple. 

What, though, if the Christian is at a meal in an unbeliever's home, and another newly converted Christian weak in his faith is also in attendance at the dinner? Suppose the following remark is made by either the unbeliever or by the newly converted man: "This is meat from a boar sacrificed to Demeter"? Then the two Christians present at the meal ought not to eat, the newly converted Christian not to eat because he would wound his own conscience, and the more mature Christian also ought not to eat in order that he would not wound the newly-converted man's conscience, nor to eat because the unbeliever may be looking for a way to bring an accusation against the Christians eating a meal in his home.

The issue is joined over a matter of conscience that may operate differently in each believer according to how much knowledge each one has acquired in his study of God's word. The issue is not joined over the question of the nature of the meat being eaten--whether or not the meat is pork--, but whether or not the meat had come from an animal devoted to a false god/goddess. Quite often the animals sacrificed at a pagan temple were pigs. It is very telling against the thought that first-century Christians were forbidden to eat pork, for then the apostle Paul would certainly have invoked such a prohibition as an added reason for a Christian to be careful about the idea of his going to a temple to eat a meal. 

"DNA Messages . . . Are . . . Pure Digital Code"; So, Who Wrote the Code?

In River Out of Eden, evolutionist Richard Dawkins describes the intricate functioning of genetic coding in the living cell:

"After Watson and Crick we know that genes themselves . . . are living strings of pure digital information. What is more they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact discs, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers . . . but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal. Our genetic system, which is the universal system, for all life on the planet is digital to the core . . . DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do . . . DNA messages . . . are . . . pure digital code."

Distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel, who describes himself as being “just as much an outsider to religion as Richard Dawkins,” stated:

"The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties . . . Since the existence of this material or something like it is a precondition of the possibility of evolution, [then] evolutionary theory [itself] cannot explain its existence. We are therefore faced with a problem . . . we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back a step: how did such a thing come into existence?"

Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at New York University, Dr. Robert Shapiro, said:

“The difference between a simple mixture of chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.”

Dr. Paul Davies:

"The living cell is the most complex system of its size known to mankind . . . ingenious marvels of construction and control, with a fine-tuning and complexity as yet unmatched by any human engineering . . . The problem of the origin of life reduces to one of understanding how encoded software emerged spontaneously from hardware. How did it happen? How did nature “go digital?. . . How did something so immensely complicated, so finessed, so exquisitely clever, come into being all on its own? How can mindless molecules, capable of only pushing and pulling their immediate neighbors, cooperate to form something as ingenious as a living organism?"(Dr. Paul Davies)

How did life begin? Darwinian evolution does not make even a pretense of offering natural selection as a credible explanation for addressing how it could have ever driven forward the unfathomable complexity of the life processes inside a bacterium, let alone the complexity of specialized cells interacting with other, different cells (bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi) in a multicellular life form (e.g., our white blood cells' role as warriors against invading pathogens). Science cannot speak logically and coherently about the subject 'origin of life' from within the parameters of a strictly scientific methodology because such a stricture by definition disallows appeal to a personal Creator. But it is not science itself that teaches us to believe only in what the scientific method can explain. Science does not explain how logical thought, emotion, and love of the arts can arise from brain tissues. These are mysteries we live with. For anyone to assume that all valid belief requires scientific explanation is scientism, a religion built on absence of logical reasoning. It is the very absence of logical reasoning whenever atheists put forth their blind-faith assertion that all physical life forms are the product of bimolecular structures that required no purpose-driven engineering feats. The atheist asserts that bacteria just serendipitously 'chanced themselves into existence' as result of molecules randomly bumping against each other for 7 eventualities that are in the life cycle of a bacterium: (1) reproduction (binary fission) absent male and female gametes; (2) assimilation of nutrients needed to sustain life; (3) respiration; (4) sensitivity; (5) growth, as seen in the interphase part of the life cycle for replication of its genetic material and an increase in the cell's cytoplasm immediately before binary fission (mitosis) for the existence of 2 identical cells from the one parent cell); (6) excretion; and (7) movement. For all this, microbes have so incredibly complex a digital software at work in them that there can be no reasonable explanation for their existence except that they have descended from microbes of their own kind, each kind being the product of special creation by an all-wise and all-powerful Creator.

Faith in God is not a blind leap into the unknown, but is a heartfelt conviction based on the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen (Hebrews 11:1). We have an invisible God, yet his existence is unmistakably evidenced by our observation of realities that attest the existence of the God of the Bible. Really, only spirit sons of God saw Him at work in creating the physical universe with mankind as its capstone creation. Although such is a reality impossible for any man ever to have seen with his eyes-- in fact, no man as a man has ever seen or can see the invisible God --, yet we can see with eyes of faith the reality of a God who is love. We do so by our witnessing the things he has created. Here is how the Bible puts the matter at Romans 1:19, 20: ". . . because what may be known about God is clearly evident [even] among them [who act wickedly]. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [i.e., the willfully blind, faithless ones] are inexcusable."

If you are not afraid to honestly consider argument for the existence of the God of the Bible, then consider yourself invited to visit JW.ORG and type into the search bar anyone of the following publication titles: "Was Life Created?," or "Origin of Life," or "Was It Designed?" You can access all publications found on JW.ORG free of charge, and also without solicitation of any of your personal information. If, however, you wish to have one of Jehovah's Witnesses to visit you in the very near future, then submit a request to that effect. If you would like for me to facilitate such a visit by JWs who live in reasonable proximity to you -- as is most likely to be the case --, then email me at endenux@sapo.pt and state your name and address. I will be happy to contact JWs who can assist you to better understand the teachings of the Bible and thereby build your faith in God's holy word, the Bible you may currently have in your possession.

Did Paul in His Epistle to the Romans Advocate for Homosexuals?

In a 2007 Reuters dispatch, the cleric who was at the time the head of the Anglican Church in the United Kingdom, Rowan Williams, is quoted by a Reuters journalist who says that Rowan Williams holds that anti-gays misread the Bible. You may read below some of the excerpted quotes from the article that you may read in its entirety here by following the link that immediately follows:
https://www.reuters.com/.../anglican-head-williams-says...

“The worldwide Anglican Communion is near breaking point over homosexuality, with conservative clerics insisting the Bible forbids gay bishops or blessings for same-sex unions. Its U.S. branch, the Episcopal Church, named a gay bishop in 2003.” ….

“In the passage of Romans that Williams referred to in Monday’s speech, [Rowan Williams admitted that the apostle] Paul said people who forgot God’s words fell into [a homosexual lifestyle, a] sin. “Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion,” Paul wrote.

“Williams said these lines were “for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality.” But right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn those who ignore God’s words.”

Well, Rowan Williams' quote of the apostle Paul in Paul's epistle to the Romans needs to be put into its real context. In this paragraph and in the next paragraph to follow this one, we will give the context. So, first of all, whom was Paul warning? He was warning Jewish religionists who were nationalistic; that warning also logically targeted Judaizers who were masquerading as Christians in order to subvert the faith of true Christians. The Judaizers’ argument was that all who wanted good relationship with God had to obey Moses as the chief spokesman for God’s will. These false Christians' (Judaizers') arguments actually amounted to a repudiation of the good news about the Christ, Jesus. Their argument amounted to no more than argument that Jesus’ primary mission served adjunctively God's purpose to have natural Israel as his special possession to rule over all other nations, and that Jesus' Law-abiding disciples would lead the way to an establishment of a globe-girdling Jewish nationalism through a legalistic and an all-too-convenient, attention-getting adherence to the Law, the Law of Moses. Those legalistically minded Jewish nationalists were not truly God-fearing; they were not of a repentant heart towards God. They made only a hypocritical pretense of loyalty to God’s eternal principles that were later incorporated into the Law of Moses, and which we Christians know were subsequently incorporated into the law of the Christ that replaced the old, Mosaic Law covenant.

Nationalistically minded Jews who preached and taught the Law of Moses were hypocrites, their hypocrisy being notably evident, as Paul handily exposed it in Romans chapters 1 and 2, in their own ungodly conduct that (1) amounted to idolatry, (2) involved theft, (3) caused Gentiles to blaspheme God, (4) included their acts of sexual immorality, and (5) was hateful to, and self-servingly judgmental of, uncircumcised Gentiles (those whom self-righteous Jews smugly declared to be a really “ungodly” people when compared to nationalistically minded devotees of Mosaic Law). Paul reminded all Christians in Rome that many uncircumcised Gentiles—they being the ones who were looked down on by Jews as ‘the ungodly Gentiles’—had learned that they were not bound to do work in accordance with the decrees of the Law of Moses. These had learned from Paul that every man—Jew and Gentile—should repentantly “put faith in the One who declares the ungodly one righteous” (Romans 4:5). (Note well this, too: Paul did not say that some actually ungodly ones (those practicing unrepentantly their ungodly conduct and who were without faith in God) nevertheless could, during all that time, still have God’s blessing, this as though God had supposedly already predestined certain individuals whom he would count/declare as righteous—such declaration supposedly occurring even while they were yet in the midst of their unrepented ungodliness because God, as goes this stripe of Calvinism, had begun to draw them ineluctably to himself. That is not the way that Jehovah dealt with the devout, God-fearing Cornelius when he helped that first Gentile convert to become a Christian, which also was when Peter learned that he must not smugly account all Gentiles to be unclean (defiled, ungodly) simply on the basis of his knowing that they were uncircumcised Gentiles. (See Acts 10:1, 2, 22, 28, 31, 34, 35.) So, keeping in mind that context, we return to quoting the Reuters journalist concerning that cleric, who was at the time the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

“Williams said reinterpreting Paul’s epistle as a warning against smug self-righteousness rather than homosexuality would favour neither side over the other in the bitter struggle that threatens to plunge the Anglican Communion into schism. It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because [the apostle] Paul and his readers [—Jewish Christian readers in Rome—] clearly agreed that homosexuality was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.”

"This reading would also upset anti-gay conservatives, who have been “up to this point happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else,” and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others, he added.
….

“Williams warned of the danger of schism. “The [Anglican] Communion has to face the fact that there is a division in our Church and it’s getting deeper and more bitter,” he said. “If the Anglican Church divides, everyone will lose.” (This ends my quoting excerpts from the journalist's article concerning Rowan Williams' position as respects homosexuality.)

Ah! But the Anglican Church cannot lose communion with the God of the Bible because it cannot lose what it never had.

As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we know that Christendom, which includes the Anglican Church, has fulfilled Bible prophecy that marks it as pseudo-Christianity. Since the 20th century’s World War I, it has become ever more evident that all Christendom is a poisonous tree; its fruitage is harming all who keep “eating” it. For example, any who let themselves be mislead by a Church’s “pro-gay” stance into approving homosexuality as a morally acceptable life-style obviously do not have at that time God’s approval. Yet, on the other hand, all who smugly persecute homosexuals—rather than that they would try to make loving appeal to homosexuals on the basis that Jehovah forgives in a large way all who repentantly turn away from and desist ungodly conduct—do not have the mind of Jesus Christ, either. True Christians do not not involve themselves in political government; they can never participate in sitting in judgment against unbelievers who are outside the Christian faith (see 1 Corinthians 5:11-13), and accordingly we do not seek (agitate for) a man-coerced (politically sanctioned) correction of society’s evils, whatever they are or are imagined to be. We only want to be left to practice our faith in peace without disruptive intrusion by those who do not share our Christ-taught values; still, we want to adhere to Christ’s command that we advertise peacefully the merits of our brotherhood’s way of life as the best way of life. We earnestly desire to welcome whole-heartedly into our fellowship anyone who has learned from God’s holy word how to repent of, and turn away from, ungodly practices, and who will then dedicate himself to doing God’s holy will and symbolize it by Christian baptism.

In Vitro Gametogenesis (IVG) -- Can It Replace the Ministrations of Our Savior Jesus Christ?

Scientists are making effort to perfect "In Vitro Gametogenesis" (IVG) for various and immoral scenarios as respects human reproduction. For example, if IVG for human reproduction is ever perfected, it could mean that 2 gay men could become the donors of the necessary gametes between them for result of an "in vitro fertilization," here the sexual union of an engineered ovum with an engineered spermatazoon. The result would, of course, be a conception (embryo), a human being, that could then be transplanted into the womb of a female (surrogate mother): the child born would be the biological offspring of a sexual union of the 2 males' DNA. The child would have a male for its biological mother. The abominable sin would belong to the child's parents; it would not be charged to the child. 

Another scenario is that a lone man could become biologically both the father and mother of his child, which, of course, would require the participation of a capable female as the surrogate mother for birth of the child. And in the case of a female, she could alone become both the father and mother of her child, which need not involve the surrogacy of another female in cases where the biological mother has the maturity of a reproductively capable female. Men's capabilities with their various genetic engineering feats (e.g., CRISPR gene editing) can never result in a sinless (perfect, physically fit for everlasting life) human as the progenitor of a perfect strand of men that might in time supplant weaker, diseased, death-prone families of men. It was not God's purpose that Jesus become the father of perfect humans so that they might then eventually supplant sinful families of men. No, but God so loved the world of sin-inheriting offspring of Adam that he transferred the life of his Son into the womb of a virgin Jewess for him to become the one whose death could substitute for the deaths of as many imperfect/sinful men as would accept Jesus' death in their behalf. 

Scientists working with In Vitro Gametogenesis (IVG) aspire to combine that discipline with CRISPR genetic engineering for the production of a perfect (physically fit for everlasting life) genome so that then the result would soon enough be a perfected race of men all members of which might live forever. Can such a thing occur? Not according to Job 14:4 where we read: “Who can produce someone clean from someone unclean? No one can!” 

It is reasonable, then, to believe that Adam’s and Eve’s guilty consciences following their rebellion against Jehovah God had a profound epigenetic effect on their genomes for the introduction of a “clock” that soon enough began counting down to biological death of their steadily debilitating bodies, and is a biology passed on to all of us because we have inherited that Adamic sin and its consequence, death (see Romans 5:12, 14). Our genomes have Adamic sin too intractably programmed into them for mere human ingenuity to extirpate it. Science will never become the savior of mankind so that science had shoved aside Jehovah’s legally acquired right—a right based upon the sacrifice of his Son’s perfect human life—for engineering an end to inherited human sinfulness. This will be accomplishment by power of holy spirit at work through the ministrations of his Son whom Jehovah has made to be the Chief Agent of life (Acts 3:15; 5:31; Hebrews 2:10). 

How did Jesus qualify for the role of his becoming a perfect human like Adam was before Adam chose to sin against God? It was necessary that God cause his Son to become the miraculous conception of a perfect embryo (Jesus the Nazarene) in the womb of a virgin female (Mary), for Mary was made pregnant apart from the agency of a man's spermatozoon. Yes, as astonishing as men's tinkering with genes has proved to be already, yet men have not done nor will they ever be able to do anything as wonderful as what the Creator did when he created Adam's and Eve's perfect (sinless) genomes; nor can men do any genetic engineering in a human genome that should result in the presence of a perfect man on earth. Even were they to place in a virgin woman's womb her own child and that conception occur apart from the agency of any man's spermatozoon, it would not be sinless as was the case for what God did for the virgin Jewess Mary. No, there is nothing that men can do for eradicating imperfection from any person's genome so that he might never suffer diseases in his body nor suffer the debilitating effects of old age. No man will ever be able to say, "I have become my own savior unto everlasting life." No man will ever produce someone clean out of someone unclean!

NPR.ORG

Scientists near a breakthrough that could revolutionize human reproduction

Researchers are inching

Does God Intend There to Be a Third Earthly, Literal Temple of Stones in Jerusalem?

Hebrews 9:21-23—“[The tabernacle was made as] an illustration . . . [having] an arrangement [whereby] both gifts and sacrifices are offered . . . They have only to do with foods and drinks and various ceremonial washings. They were legal requirements concerning the body and were imposed until the appointed times to set things straight . . . [Moses] inaugurated that arrangement when [he] sprinkled the tent and ALL the vessels of the holy service with blood . . . [because] it was necessary for the typical representations of the things in the heavens to be cleansed by these means.”

So, what did the Scripture quoted above say about the matter under review here? “ALL the vessels of the holy service [were sprinkled] with the blood . . . because according to the Law nearly all things are cleansed with blood.”  Such “were legal requirements . . . imposed until the appointed time to set things straight.” When did that time come? That time came “when Christ came as a high priest of the good things THAT HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE” (Hebrews 9:11). Thus there will be no literal third temple in the future that would yet again have, by physical replication, some things in it and made ready for the Messiah for when he supposedly enters into that third earthly temple. In fact, Ezekiel’s temple vision nowhere showed to him the Messiah entering into that visionary temple. (The response I am making here to this doctrine made by adherents of Messianic Judaism, which has it that the Messiah makes a fleshly body entrance into a third earthly temple, is response that does not approach refutation of the doctrine by one’s invoking the nature of Jesus’ post-resurrection glory. That, of course, is a possible approach, because Jesus’ glorification to life as an immortal spirit makes him to be like his Father in a certain way pertinent to the subject matter here. How so? Jesus, too, now “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). Therefore, Jesus could never again become a man here on earth.)

As goes this doctrine made by adherents of Messianic Judaism, the Messiah is supposed to enter the third earthly temple and make use of things in it for worship of the Father. But why? Why, after Jesus’ glorification, would the Father ever again want another earthly, geographically delimited area as the locale for a literal, earthly temple built of stones for sake of pure worship to be given him, the Spirit par excellence, by his earthly servants? That idea contradicts the spirit of Jesus’ words he gave the Samaritan woman for her assurance that the hour was upon men when neither on Mount Gerizim in Samaria nor on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem would the true worshipers of the Father think themselves in need of those places in order to worship the Father with spirit and truth (see John 4:21, 23, 24). But adherents of Messianic Judaism believe that there will be a third earthly, literal temple of stones—that the Father supposedly wants certain things once again to be in such a temple, namely, the replications of certain of the things that had existed first in the tabernacle and then afterward in the temples, and that were supposedly not typical representations of heavenly arrangements. 

But No! The Bible in the book of Hebrews does not distinguish between heaven-pointing (typical) things in the tabernacle/temples that needed cleansing by animal blood, on the one hand, but that, on the other hand, there were some other things in the tabernacle/temples that supposedly were not typical. See also Hebrews 8:5 for absence of any such distinction because Moses, as the last cited scripture tells us, did “make all things after their pattern,” first for their placement in the tabernacle; then other craftsmen made replications of them for placement centuries later in the earthly temples in Jerusalem, first in Solmon’s temple, and then, after the exile, in a second temple we know as Zerubbabel’s temple, which was rebuilt by Herod; but, all those things crafted by human hand for placement in the tabernacle and temples were all of them typical representations. Yes, they were all of them heaven-pointing types/patterns, or they were some of the types that were destined to have fulfillment for sake of spirit-anointed disciples while they had yet to become absent in the flesh, but who were nevertheless sealed by holy spirit for a future resurrection into life in heaven as immortal spirits serving alongside the Messiah as his under priests and as his co-rulers in his heavenly Kingdom, a Kingdom government installed on a heavenly Mount Zion. Of all things that were in an earthly center of pure worship for the nation of Israel, all of those things have already had their prophetic significance fulfilled in their antitype—the antitypes “have already taken place” (Hebrews 9:11). 

What follows in the next 2 paragraphs is bit of an excursus yet one relatable to the main point of this post. I will resume more directly the main topic in this post in the paragraph that begins with the sentence “The doctrine that has been chiefly under examination here . . .”

Jesus was anointed with holy spirit and then, 3 and a half years later (in 33 C.E.), his blood was shed on the stake on which he died the day he was nailed to it outside the city of Jerusalem, and then on the third day after that, he was resurrected a mighty spirit person for subsequent entrance into the real Most Holy (heaven itself) where he was able to officiate as the High Priest for presenting to his Father the value of his shed blood; he was a High Priest after the manner of Melchizedek, which manner for both Melchizedek and Jesus was one not according to genealogical descent as required by the now, since Pentecost of 33 C.E., obsolete Law of Moses. On that Day of Pentecost, 33 C.E., the Law of Moses became obsolete, it having been set aside together with, as its feature, the Levitical priesthood. The Law no longer codifies any conduct in which we as God’s servants must perform it out of belief that our obedience to the Law’s commands—simply because they are the Law’s commands—are crucial/necessary to us for a righteous standing unto justification to life made by Jehovah God. Our obedience to the law of our Lord Jesus Christ, however, is crucial/necessary for our salvation (Hebrews 5:9, 10). No, there is no obedience on our part that would be sufficient in and of itself for earning us our salvation, but our obedience is nonetheless necessary in order that we appropriate—accept unto ourselves—God’s undeserved kindness, his gift of salvation for as many as will accept it on his terms.  

Really, then, there were no things in the literal tabernacle/temples that supposedly were not typical, that supposedly did not point to the existence of an arrangement of things for their timely appearances in a spiritual temple that God had created in 29 C.E. on the day of Jesus’ baptism. But the Law of Moses cannot legitimate Jesus’ high priestly services because it could recognize as high priests for sake of natural Israel only certain men descended from Aaron. When, however, John the Baptizer dipped Jesus beneath the water of the Jordan River, then God anointed Jesus of the tribe of Judah with holy spirit immediately after John lifted Jesus back up from beneath the water. Jesus then began to fulfill his Father’s will as it specially applied to him, a sinless descendant of King David, so that Jesus finished his earthly life in sacrificial death upon an altar greater than the one in Jerusalem, which greater altar for him was the will of God for him who was ministering as God’s chief spokesman on earth in Israel. He was then as though he were like a certain bull and goat, those animals being carefully inspected for absence of blemish and thus fit for sacrifice so that they could be placed in turn upon the altar of burnt offering for sacrifice on the annual Day of Atonement, and the blood of them then brought one after the other in specified order into the Most Holy for sake of the forgiveness of sins. 

The doctrine that has been chiefly under examination here—one belonging to adherents of Messianic Judaism—, is that there were some things in the tabernacle/temples such that, supposedly, they might yet be replicated for use in a third literal (earthly) temple, this so that occasionally they would even need cleansing by the blood of sacrificed animals! If all this discussion about a third temple to be built in Jerusalem for animal sacrifices sounds strange to you, then know that such is the strange doctrine taught in Messianic Judaism, taught by its adherents for a literal interpretation of the closing chapters in the book of Ezekiel so that, as goes the mistaken interpretation of them, there will be a third literal temple. No, Ezekiel’s prophetic temple vision was never given for sake of ever teaching God’s servants anywhere at any time that there should be built a third literal temple situated in the middle of a designated territory in the Middle East, within the borders of the modern day state of Israel, in Jerusalem. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses have available to them on  JW.ORG (https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=Pure+Worship) a beautiful explanation of much of Ezekiel’s prophetic visions, including timely explanation of Ezekiel’s visionary temple. You, too, can read it in its entirety. Everything offered on JW.ORG  is offered free of charge—never is there solicitation for any of your personal information, nor for any of your money—never ever! Please! We are in the last of the last days of Satan’s control of the world. So, if you love sound, Biblical teachings that build hope for the unhindered obtainment, so very near at hand now, of pure worship of Jehovah God in all the earth when there will be no more wickedness, famines, diseases of any kind, death, sorrowful tears, and absence of loved ones now temporarily parted from us in death (see Revelation 21:1-5; Acts 17:30, 31), then enjoy your study of the Bible by browsing the contents of JW.ORG, and welcome the visit of the next couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses who will come to your door, offering to assist you in your study of God’s Word for building strong, fine relationship with—godly devotion exclusively for—our heavenly Father, Jehovah God. We make declaration of the good news, that declaration being our preachments and teachings in all the world about Jesus Christ’s heavenly Kingdom government as revealed in the prophetic Scriptures. This work we do is according to the command of the everlasting God for us to promote among all the nations “obedience by faith.” (See Romans 16:25-27.)

Protein Folding Thwarts Any Theory of Abiogenesis

 Which came first—protein folding or cellular life? Clearly, protein folding never occurred outside the cell, because any protein folded outside the cell, even under laboratory-assisted mechanisms, would never have a “natural-selection” fit for a cell’s useful life. So, protein folding first occurred in a cell. How was the nucleosome’s genetic code able to code for all the processes before natural selection could blindly work it all out for determination of when and how a cell's needed proteins are  made and folded? Let us focus, though, on folding of an amino acid sequence, a polypeptide chain, into a 3-dimensional structure that proteins possess. The folding of a polypeptide chain must occur in fractions of a second if the cell is to have any use in its relatively short life span for the resultant protein. How serious is the problem?

“Some researchers noted that [, in a search made by a computer program for a correct folding of a specific protein,] the accuracy is not high enough for a third of its predictions, and that it does not reveal the mechanism or rules of protein folding for the  [protein folding problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding_problem)  to be considered solved.

“When studied  [outside the cell](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro), the slowest folding proteins require many minutes or hours to fold.

“In 1969, Cyrus Levinthal noted that, because of the very large number of degrees of freedom in an unfolded polypeptide chain, the molecule has an astronomical number of possible conformations. An estimate of 3^300 or 10^143 was made in one of his papers.[70]  [Levinthal's paradox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal%27s_paradox)  is a thought experiment based on the observation that if a protein were folded by sequential sampling of all possible conformations, it would take an astronomical amount of time to do so, even if the conformations were sampled at a rapid rate (on the  [nanosecond](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosecond)  or  [picosecond](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picosecond)  scale).[71] Based upon the observation that proteins fold much faster than this, Levinthal then proposed that a random conformational search does not occur, and the protein must, therefore, fold through a series of metastable  [intermediate states](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_intermediate) .”

That polypeptide chain (PC) undergoes folding by the ribosome for production of a stable protein. The fascinating thing here is how a PC  interacts with a ribosome for determination of the correct folding to be imposed on the PC.  A PC is capable of being folded into any one of an astronomically large number of different ways by the ribosome. How is the correct folding given the PC by the ribosome? Only one of a myriad possible foldings that a PC can assume, were it not for regulatory mechanisms (e.g., chaperone proteins) assisting the ribosome, will be imposed for the production of a complex protein crucial to a certain function/process/manufacture in a certain cell, and not be for production of a protein that would be not merely unnecessary for the cell, but could easily be for production of a protein that would ultimately be lethal to that cell’s reason for existence. There are, moreover, different types of ribosomes, each type having been specially coded for that type ribosome's existence with its type-specific capability to assist in normative imposition on the PC of the correct folding that the PC should assume (for it, in turn, to become the correct and stable protein needed), for “each type of ribosome manufactures characteristically distinct types of proteins.” These proteins might be any of a number of different designs/shapes. Some are exported from the cell, and others are for exclusive use within the cell for making all the cell’s structures in the cytoplasm, and some proteins are for the different types of ribosomes that are manufactured in the nucleosome. These ribosome-building proteins exit the cytoplasm and are then found in the nucleus through mediation of a number of different transport receptors  (karyopherins or importins); all this is for construction of more and various types of ribosomes in the nucleosome, they being readied for export into the cytoplasm, or they become part of a duplicate population of ribosomes needed before cell replication can proceed. 

Now, the aforementioned fact about ribosomal proteins being delivered from the cytoplasm to the nucleus squares the miracle.  How so? Consider the following quote (see source at [Ribosomes: Manufactured by Design, Part 1 - Reasons to Believe](https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/ribosomes-manufactured-by-design-part-1))

“Because ribosomes are needed to make the proteins needed to make ribosomes, it becomes difficult to envision how this type of chicken-and-egg system could emerge via evolutionary processes. Protein synthesis would have to function optimally at the onset. If it did not, it would lead to a cycle of auto-destruction for the cell.

"Ribosomes couldn’t begin as crudely operating protein-manufacturing machines that gradually increased in efficiency—evolving step-by-step—toward the optimal systems, characteristic of contemporary biochemistry. If error-prone, ribosomes will produce defective proteins—including ribosomal proteins. In turn, defective ribosomal proteins will form ribosomes even more prone to error, setting up the auto-destruct cycle. And in any evolutionary scheme, the first ribosomes would have been error-prone.”

[Mark Roseman](https://www.quora.com/profile/Mark-Roseman-5) Biochemistry Professor (Emeritus in 2020) at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (1979–present) says:  “To make proteins you need L-amino acids, which require complex metabolic pathways, which requires dozens of enzymes—[themselves] proteins—which require DNA for coding. A membrane does no good without transport proteins and an unbelievably complex apparatus for correctly inserting them into bilayers.

“You need an energy source to drive protein synthesis, something like an ATP cycle.

“Researchers in abiogenesis all agree that several elements are required to make a cell, and for a long time they pursued various ways that things can happen sequentially. But most of these hypothetical schemes find themselves stalled at some stage with chicken-and-egg dilemmas…. 

“[It is] hard to explain abiogenesis via a sequence of steps.” [end of quote]

Yes, it's difficult for anyone even to conceive any plausible scenario other than that in one fell swoop a creative act had to have occurred for the life of the first living cells of their kind, this in order that they should also have ability to replicate themselves before dying, and so on and so on.

 Do you think that ribosomes having ability to assist in imposing just the correct folding on a PC,  for result of a stable and needed protein, are the product of random mutations in the genetic code resident in a cell’s nucleosome? That is not a reasonable speculation, is it? No, certainly not! Far more reasonable is our recognition of the existence of a purposeful Creator who has wisdom and power for designing life forms suitable for existence and replication here on earth. The Bible identifies him by the name “Jehovah,” and the Bible says this about him: “With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light” (Psalm 36:9). 

For more information on the origin of life, follow this link: 

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&pub=lf