Ecclesiastes 11:5 vs Modern Science

[JohnHurt]

This verse is very interesting:

Ecclesiastes 11:5

As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

During the development of an embryo in mammals, the egg is fertilized by the sperm, and then divides into 16 cells, forming a "blastocyst" or fluid filled sphere that implants into the uterine wall.

This blastocyst/embryo contains a new and unique set of chromosomes that contain a combination of the DNA, or genetic information from both parents.

After the blastocyst is secured to the uterine wall, it develops a placenta, and then the blastocyst elongates and lays down the structure of the bones, and places the kidneys, liver, heart, lungs and other organs in the correction locations.

Where is the intelligence located that is directing this construction process?

Some type of "DNA Reader" is reading this new DNA strand from the blastocyst and determining hair color, eye color, height, the length of the bones, and other characteristics of the individual, and then has the intelligence to know where to place all of the 206 bones in the correct location to construct the human embryo.

What is guiding this process of reading the DNA strands to make the new individual, and where is it located? Is the DNA reader located in the blastocyst, or is it in the uterine wall? How does the DNA reader access and read the DNA code found in the chromosomes of the embryo and then instruct the different types of cells to grow in the correct locations?

Since the Blastocyst is spherical, how does the DNA Reader know which end of the blastocyst is the "head" and which end will be the "feet"? How does it know what will be the "left" or "right" side of the embryo?

And where is this "intelligence" located that is in charge of this operation?

My answer is that the "intelligence" that reads the DNA strand and controls the construction and development of the embryo must exist outside of what we would call "reality". The formation of bones in the womb of her that is with child is like the "spirit", or "the works of God" - something outside of reality that cannot be measured by science and so is outside our ability to comprehend it. Yet it is obvious that this intelligence must exist because of the outcome it produces.

Birth is a miracle, that happens every day. And so since birth is "common" to our experience, and we dismiss it as not being a true miracle. We are so small.

If you have insight of the process of how the bones are laid out in the womb, I would be pleased to hear your views.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible has many references to how God's Spirit moves in men, and documents the miracles of healing that were performed by Christ, His Apostles, and many of the Prophets. All of the miracles recorded in the Bible are contrary to modern scientific dogmas, and are dismissed as "superstition".

Yet, if you have seen the miracles of God in your own life, you know nothing is impossible with God. Rather, the belief in that intelligent men should only follow "scientific principles" without God has become a limiting factor that blinds most men to the true nature of our reality.

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has developed a theory of that addresses phenomena that occurs outside of "science". Dr. Sheldrake's theory has been banned by the scientists that do not believe in God, but believe only in "science". These "scientists" are the same men who have banned the teaching of Creationism in our schools, and have told us that we are all descended from monkeys, and that we have no spirit or purpose to our existence. They believe that since the things of God cannot be measured by "science", that they do not exist.

I found this video interesting.

[Ken]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

The process of bone growth is basic anatomy and physiology and no mystery at all. Here, for example, is a standard online text on the subject: https://open.oregonstate.education/aand ... velopment/

Or if you want a more in-depth description with citations to the actual science, here's one: https://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgatm ... 20Bone.pdf

[JohnHurt]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

The process of bone growth is basic anatomy and physiology and no mystery at all. Here, for example, is a standard online text on the subject: https://open.oregonstate.education/aand ... velopment/

Or if you want a more in-depth description with citations to the actual science, here's one: https://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgatm ... 20Bone.pdf

Thanks, Ken.

The PDF document you supplied stated that:

In areas where bones are formed, mesenchymal cells from these sources condense and form regions of high
cell density that represent outlines of future skeletal elements.
During this condensation process, important changes take place
in the extracellular matrix between the cells allowing cells to
establish contact with each other and activate signaling pathways that regulate cell differentiation. Classical experiments
have shown that, by the time mesenchymal condensations
appear, the cells within them have already acquired properties
that give them positional identity. Mechanisms that ensure the
development of a complex skeleton with elements of unique
size, shape, and anatomical identity can therefore be traced
back to molecular and cellular events in precondensed mesenchyme.

What is guiding the molecular and cellular events in the precondensed mesenchyme to know where to place the bones and organs in the correct locations, according to the DNA supplied by the parents?

Mesenchyme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesenchyme

Mesenchyme (/ˈmɛsənkaɪm ˈmiːzən-/[1]) is a type of loosely organized animal embryonic connective tissue of undifferentiated cells that give rise to most tissues, such as skin, blood or bone.[2][3] The interactions between mesenchyme and epithelium help to form nearly every organ in the developing embryo.

What process is reading the new DNA strands created at conception to tell the mesenchyme to produce the bones and organs of the individual - of the proper and correct size and other attributes so that the individual would inherit the traits of the mother and father?

Where is the DNA reader located? How does it instruct the Mesenchyme to follow the DNA pattern?

What is controlling Gastrulation to create an individual embryo that matches the DNA strand?

Gastrulation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrulation

Gastrulation is the stage in the early embryonic development of most animals, during which the blastula (a single-layered hollow sphere of cells), or in mammals the blastocyst is reorganized into a two-layered or three-layered embryo known as the gastrula.[1] Before gastrulation, the embryo is a continuous epithelial sheet of cells; by the end of gastrulation, the embryo has begun differentiation to establish distinct cell lineages, set up the basic axes of the body (e.g. dorsal-ventral, anterior-posterior), and internalized one or more cell types including the prospective gut.[2]

Gastrulation takes place after cleavage and the formation of the blastula, or blastocyst. Gastrulation is followed by organogenesis, when individual organs develop within the newly formed germ layers.[6] Each layer gives rise to specific tissues and organs in the developing embryo.

What tells the process of gastrulation the correct axes of the body? What is guiding this process?

Organogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organogenesis

Organogenesis is the phase of embryonic development that starts at the end of gastrulation and continues until birth. During organogenesis, the three germ layers formed from gastrulation (the ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm) form the internal organs of the organism.[1]

What is reading the DNA strand of the individual embryo to control Organogenesis so that the organs are developed in accordance with inheritable traits from the father and mother?

Where is this intelligence located that is guiding this process?

According to Ecclesiastes 11:5, I think the answer "I don't know" is the right one.

I am out of my field on this one, so your help is appreciated.

John

[Ken]

Embryology or developmental biology is not my area of expertise either.

I'm simply pointing out that this is not some area of science like dark matter or the Big Bang Theory for which there is little concrete information. This is an area of science for which there is a tremendous amount of information in great detail. So it is incorrect to assert that there are big unknown holes in our knowledge of bone development.

There are, of course, limits to our knowledge in every area of science. Every scientific question that is answered only opens up new questions. So we don't know everything and never will. Far from it. But I don't think bone development is a uniquely unknown area of science simply because it is mentioned in Ecclesiastes.

[JohnHurt]

Embryology or developmental biology is not my area of expertise either.

I'm simply pointing out that this is not some area of science like dark matter or the Big Bang Theory for which there is little concrete information. This is an area of science for which there is a tremendous amount of information in great detail. So it is incorrect to assert that there are big unknown holes in our knowledge of bone development.

There are, of course, limits to our knowledge in every area of science. Every scientific question that is answered only opens up new questions. So we don't know everything and never will. Far from it. But I don't think bone development is a uniquely unknown area of science simply because it is mentioned in Ecclesiastes.

Ken,

Thanks for your help.

The reference to Ecclesiastes 11:5 may no longer be true, as we do "somewhat" know how the bones grow in the womb, or at least we can describe it. But we cannot duplicate it. So we don't fully understand it.

Job 26:7 says that God "hangeth the earth upon nothing", and was written at a time when most men believed a flat Earth was held up on the shoulders of Atlas. We know now that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun's gravitational field. And we can describe gravity as a warping of space-time by the mass of the Sun. But how does mass warp space time to produce gravity? We can only describe it in scientific terms, but if we really understood it, then would be able to duplicate it. We don't understand gravity.

The same is true with the development of an embryo to include the inherited traits of the father and mother. We can only describe it. What reads the DNA to build the embryo as a synthesis of the parents is not visible to science at this point, and so it is ignored. We don't understand it at all.

Modern science is locked into accepting as true only the things it can describe. If it cannot be observed, or a plausible explanation given for the outcome, then science tells us it is either an illusion, or inconsequential and to be ignored. The DNA reader that assembles the embryo falls into this category. Just ignore it, it is inconsequential. Or maybe the answer is that the process of reading the DNA to build the embryo is outside of what we call "reality" and is supernatural.

Science does not accept the supernatural, that is, that things and processes can exist outside Nature. Science tells us the supernatural does not exist.

Yet, "science" proposes the "Big Bang" theory, that all matter and energy were created in an instant. But what created the "Big Bang"? If the "Big Bang" created all of "nature", then whatever created the "Big Bang" must be outside of Nature, and therefore be "Supernatural". That is where "science" ends. It cannot address the supernatural.

I think we have been blinded by science, and made it into a "god" of stone that can only speak about what can be observed. Otherwise, it is mute and encourages us to be silent too.

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than all of the previous centuries of its existence." Nikola Tesla.

Thanks for your input on this. I would have never found those research papers.

John

[Ken]

Modern science is locked into accepting as true only the things it can describe. If it cannot be observed, or a plausible explanation given for the outcome, then science tells us it is either an illusion, or inconsequential and to be ignored. The DNA reader that assembles the embryo falls into this category. Just ignore it, it is inconsequential. Or maybe the answer is that the process of reading the DNA to build the embryo is outside of what we call "reality" and is supernatural.

Science does not accept the supernatural, that is, that things and processes can exist outside Nature. Science tells us the supernatural does not exist.

Yet, "science" proposes the "Big Bang" theory, that all matter and energy were created in an instant. But what created the "Big Bang"? If the "Big Bang" created all of "nature", then whatever created the "Big Bang" must be outside of Nature, and therefore be "Supernatural". That is where "science" ends. It cannot address the supernatural.

I think you are wrong about this.

Science really doesn't accept anything as true. It simply accepts that at a given moment in time, X-explanation or theory is at present, the explanation given the available evidence.

Most of the science from the 19th Century is obsolete and outdated. And much of it is flatly wrong. And much science from the present will eventually be proven to be wrong, or at least incomplete.

For example, 100 years ago in the 1920s, all the geology books talked about the Geosynclinal Theory of Mountain building. Which turns out to have been completely wrong and has since been replaced by the the Theory of Continental Drift. No one claimed that Geosynclinal Theory was the "truth" or that now Continental Drift is the "truth". Simply that in the 1920s Geosynclinal Theory was the best explanation for mountain formation based on the evidence collected at that point in time.

By the 1950s, oceanographers using magnetometer data of the sea floor collected by the Navy during WW2 and after began to piece together a new theory of seafloor spreading and continental drift using this new source of evidence and information. No one claims this new theory is some immutable "truth". Rather, it is currently the best explanation given the available evidence. Will some new scientist or group of scientists come along to propose something new based on new evidence? Almost certainly. Which may not overturn Plate Tectonics, but may substantially revise it based on new information.

Likewise with the Big Bang. No one claims it is some sort of "truth". Simply that based on what we can observe and perceive about the universe, it is currently the best available explanation Since it is mostly theoretical at this point, it will almost certainly undergo continual revision and updating as science advances. And may even be replaced by something completely new. Rather than be dismaying to scientists (because they were wrong) this would be an immensely exciting moment in science worthy of a Nobel Prize or the equivalent. There is no faster way to make your name in science than to overturn existing dogma. Witness Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Crick & Watson, Einstein, etc.

As for science not accepting the supernatural? That also isn't true. There are plenty, perhaps the majority, of scientists around the world who adhere to various faiths: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Science simply accepts that the supernatural is outside the realm of science. As are many other thing that pertain to humanity such as love, beauty, and morality.

[JohnHurt]

There is no faster way to make your name in science than to overturn existing dogma. Witness Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Crick & Watson, Einstein, etc.

Galileo was condemned as a heretic for his heliocentric theory, as everyone thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus delayed the publication of his heliocentric theory until just before he died. Like Semmelweis, you only make a name for yourself in "science" after they quit persecuting you and the "scientists" reluctantly have to accept that you have discovered a better explanation of reality.

"Science" also perverts true science to uphold the religion of "science". Here is an example:

From what I understand, Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution based on the size of bird beaks as to the efficiency of the food the birds ate on the Galapagos islands. That is, he proposed evolution existed inside a species.

Just a few years earlier, the spontaneous generation of life, a ancient theory of how life is created and was believed since the time of Plato, this theory of spontaneous generation had been disproven by Louis Pasteur and others.

"Science" needed a new way to present the origin of life and all of the species on earth to humanity - without resorting to Divine intervention.

So Darwin was pressured to modify his theory so that one species could create another species. That is, one species with a certain number of chromosomes could "evolve" into another species with a different number of chromosomes. Darwin became famous in "science" by proposing this "theory".

What Darwin proposed is that a male and female chimpanzee, each with 48 chromosomes, can produce a human with only 46 chromosomes. "Given enough time", evolution states that this could happen and a new viable species from another species could arrive, even though it has never happened in all of recorded history.

What "science" fails to tell us is that both a male and female human, each with 46 chromosomes, would have to be "evolved" by the chimpanzees with 48 chromosomes - at the same time in history, and at the same location so that the new humans could mate and then have 46 chromosome children.

This incredible "coincidence" of perfect evolution of a male and female at the same time and location is not needed just to produce humans, but every species that has ever existed on earth. The creation of the species just did not happen that way, or we would see some evidence of this process still continuing today.

But the religion of "science" demands this, and all of the "scientific" followers of this cult must obey.

The "Theory of Evolution" also depends on the "spontaneous generation of life" to create the very first living cell from which all "evolved" life is derived. The theory of the "Spontaneous Generation of Life" has been totally disproven, yet "evolution" states it must exist to start the evolutionary process.

So the "scientists" have tried to create life in a test tube to prove the spontaneous generation of life, without success. The problem is, if the "scientists" could create life in a test tube, it would only prove that it takes intelligence to create life in the first place.

Modern Science is a religion that requires blind faith, it is not something based on observation. Otherwise, they would call the "Theory of Evolution" a "hypothesis", and not a theory, as a theory can be proven in a laboratory, while a hypothesis is an educated guess. And Evolution is a really bad guess at that.

If you want to discover whether "science" is really a religion, then become a public school or university teacher and present the obvious flaws associated with the theory of evolution. You will meet the same fate as Galileo.

So to talk to a "scientist" about where the intelligence lies that reads the DNA code in a blastocyst to form the bones of a child in the womb, would be a waste of time. "Science" doesn't know how many things like this work, but they want you to think otherwise.

Thanks for the discussion.

John

[JohnHurt]

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake proposes that the "Religion of Science" has at least 10 Dogmas that cannot be contested. These dogmas are:

1. Nature is mechanical, all species are mechanical biological "things" and have no soul or other purpose. We have no soul or life after death.

2. Matter is unconscious. All species are unconscious, and so are we.

3. The Laws of Nature are fixed. (except for the Big Bang) Constants do not change. (except for the Big Bang.)

4. The Total amount of matter and energy is always the same. (except for the Big Bang.)

5. Nature is purposeless.

6. Biological Heredity is material

7. Memories are stored in the brain.

8. Your mind is entirely inside your head.

9. Psychic phenomena is impossible, it is an illusion.

10. Mechanistic Medicine is the only medicine that works, all other alternative medicines are quackery.

These are "scientific" constraints that are holding back discoveries in our natural world.

With this mindset, "science" cannot explain things like animal instincts, such as how a bird knows how to build a nest.

Or this: I raise sheep, and when a lamb is born, it not only knows how to stand up on 4 legs, but to find its mother's teat, attach itself, and suck. It if does not, it dies. Where is the information for this instinct in the DNA code?

Or is the intelligence that guides the instincts of animals located elsewhere?

Or could it be, that all animals are tied together, and somehow share common instincts for their survival?

The breeds of chickens that have been "industrialized" and have had their eggs harvested repeatedly will ultimately not be "broody" and know to sit on a clutch of eggs, an instinct that is necessary for survival if man is not present. They survive only because men put their eggs into an incubator.

The wilder breeds of chickens that have not been industrialized by men are more likely to be broody, find a place to hide their eggs, and sit on them to hatch. This is necessary for survival. How do they share this information? Or lack of information?

Is is something in the DNA that is being overwritten by men that harvest the eggs of the industrialized chickens, or is there some other connection between all of the members of an industrialized chicken breed that has been lost?

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has proposed that there is a "morphic resonance" field that is connecting animals together, and that the instincts that animals have are tied together by something outside of what we can see.

People are the same way. Some family groups are religious, while others are not. Some thrifty, some lazy, some industrious, some alcoholic. Live in an area long enough, and you become like the inhabitants, like Lot was warned about living in Sodom.

Is it because you are observing their behaviors that you become like your peers, or is there something else, like a field that connects people together, for good or bad? Is this why Christians need to live in their own communities?

Have a great day. I think I am done with this.

John

[Ken]

There is no faster way to make your name in science than to overturn existing dogma. Witness Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Crick & Watson, Einstein, etc.

Galileo was condemned as a heretic for his heliocentric theory, as everyone thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus delayed the publication of his heliocentric theory until just before he died. Like Semmelweis, you only make a name for yourself in "science" after they quit persecuting you and the "scientists" reluctantly have to accept that you have discovered a better explanation of reality.

It wasn't science that persecuted Galileo and Copernicus, it was the church.

"Science" also perverts true science to uphold the religion of "science". Here is an example:

From what I understand, Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution based on the size of bird beaks as to the efficiency of the food the birds ate on the Galapagos islands. That is, he proposed evolution existed inside a species.

Finches were one of his observations. But Darwin didn't publish the "On the Origin of Species" until two decades after his 5-year voyage on the Beagle and it is 700 pages of material and contains hundreds of living and fossil examples. Not just conclusions based on one observation of finches.

quote=JohnHurt post_id=221329 time=1707834390 user_id=1351]Just a few years earlier, the spontaneous generation of life, a ancient theory of how life is created and was believed since the time of Plato, this theory of spontaneous generation had been disproven by Louis Pasteur and others.

"Science" needed a new way to present the origin of life and all of the species on earth to humanity - without resorting to Divine intervention.

So Darwin was pressured to modify his theory so that one species could create another species. That is, one species with a certain number of chromosomes could "evolve" into another species with a different number of chromosomes. Darwin became famous in "science" by proposing this "theory". [/quote]

None of this is true. Darwin wasn't pressured to modify he theory. Science didn't "need" anything. And Darwin did not address or propose abiogenesis in his work. In fact, he talked about a creator in "On the Origin of Species" Darwin wasn't trying to explain all off life's mysteries in one volume. He was only proposing a mechanism for the biological change that is observable all around us.

What Darwin proposed is that a male and female chimpanzee, each with 48 chromosomes, can produce a human with only 46 chromosomes. "Given enough time", evolution states that this could happen and a new viable species from another species could arrive, even though it has never happened in all of recorded history.

What "science" fails to tell us is that both a male and female human, each with 46 chromosomes, would have to be "evolved" by the chimpanzees with 48 chromosomes - at the same time in history, and at the same location so that the new humans could mate and then have 46 chromosome children.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Darwin wrote before the discovery of chromosomes or modern genetics. In fact the chromosome was not even discovered until 1882, the year that Darwin died. And the sequencing of chromosome numbers in individual plant and animal species came later than that.

In any event, neither Darwin nor any evolutionary scientist has ever proposed that modern humans descended from modern chimpanzees. Only that they share a common distant ancestor. And the difference in number of chromosomes is explained by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in humans. Is that theory correct? I don't know. Not my area. But it is the current scientific explanation.

The "Theory of Evolution" also depends on the "spontaneous generation of life" to create the very first living cell from which all "evolved" life is derived. The theory of the "Spontaneous Generation of Life" has been totally disproven, yet "evolution" states it must exist to start the evolutionary process.

So the "scientists" have tried to create life in a test tube to prove the spontaneous generation of life, without success. The problem is, if the "scientists" could create life in a test tube, it would only prove that it takes intelligence to create life in the first place.

No. evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. One does not depend on the other. And neither Darwin's theory of natural selection nor modern evolution makes any statement about abiogenesis. If not God, the earth could have been "seeded" with early proto-organisms by aliens. None of that has to do with the theory of evolution, which is about how existing living organisms changed.

[Ken]

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake proposes that the "Religion of Science" has at least 10 Dogmas that cannot be contested. These dogmas are:

1. Nature is mechanical, all species are mechanical biological "things" and have no soul or other purpose. We have no soul or life after death.

2. Matter is unconscious. All species are unconscious, and so are we.

3. The Laws of Nature are fixed. (except for the Big Bang) Constants do not change. (except for the Big Bang.)

4. The Total amount of matter and energy is always the same. (except for the Big Bang.)

5. Nature is purposeless.

6. Biological Heredity is material

7. Memories are stored in the brain.

8. Your mind is entirely inside your head.

9. Psychic phenomena is impossible, it is an illusion.

10. Mechanistic Medicine is the only medicine that works, all other alternative medicines are quackery.

These are "scientific" constraints that are holding back discoveries in our natural world.

With this mindset, "science" cannot explain things like animal instincts, such as how a bird knows how to build a nest.

Or this: I raise sheep, and when a lamb is born, it not only knows how to stand up on 4 legs, but to find its mother's teat, attach itself, and suck. It if does not, it dies. Where is the information for this instinct in the DNA code?

Or is the intelligence that guides the instincts of animals located elsewhere?

Or could it be, that all animals are tied together, and somehow share common instincts for their survival?

The breeds of chickens that have been "industrialized" and have had their eggs harvested repeatedly will ultimately not be "broody" and know to sit on a clutch of eggs, an instinct that is necessary for survival if man is not present. They survive only because men put their eggs into an incubator.

The wilder breeds of chickens that have not been industrialized by men are more likely to be broody, find a place to hide their eggs, and sit on them to hatch. This is necessary for survival. How do they share this information? Or lack of information?

Is is something in the DNA that is being overwritten by men that harvest the eggs of the industrialized chickens, or is there some other connection between all of the members of an industrialized chicken breed that has been lost?

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has proposed that there is a "morphic resonance" field that is connecting animals together, and that the instincts that animals have are tied together by something outside of what we can see.

People are the same way. Some family groups are religious, while others are not. Some thrifty, some lazy, some industrious, some alcoholic. Live in an area long enough, and you become like the inhabitants, like Lot was warned about living in Sodom.

Is it because you are observing their behaviors that you become like your peers, or is there something else, like a field that connects people together, for good or bad? Is this why Christians need to live in their own communities?

Have a great day. I think I am done with this.

John

Yes, Sheldrake is a famous "New Age" scientist who has dabbled in all kinds of pseudoscience and metaphysics.

But simply because he invents some "religion of science" and invents his 10 dogmas to go along with it doesn't make it true. And most of those so-called dogmas don't actually exist. Take for example, #3 "the laws of nature are fixed". In point of fact, Newtonian Physics with all of its laws has been supplanted by quantum mechanics at the micro level and by relativity. So what we think are scientific laws are, in fact, subject to change.

And most of the rest of these dogmas are simply statements by Sheldrake that don't have any bearing in the ordinary pursuit of science.