the self replicating watch argument

[RealityCheck01]

As far as physical evidence for God, see my previous post regarding archaeology and history as branches of science.

Unfortunately, I read a previous post ignorant about science.
There is no physical evidence of common ancestry back to a single pair of human beings.
Our most recent common ancestors are members of populations not individuals. The genetic "Eve" and "Adam" did not exist 6000 years ago and thus debunk YEC. The genetic "Eve" and "Adam" change with time. The genetic "Eve" and "Adam" are highly unlikely to have lived at the same time or place.

Deep ignorance that universal common ancestry has no credible evidence when the evidence is easy to find (read the Wikipedia article). Also see: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

There is archaeological evidence for many places and events mentions in the Bible. For example Jericho certainly existed but there is no archaeological evidence for the Bole story about Jericho.
However, there is no or little archaeological evidence for many major events or people in the Bible. No archaeological evidence of cultures being destroyed in a world-wide flood. No evidence of a large Jewish population in Egypt. No evidence of a Pharaoh and army drowning in the Red Sea. A few mentions of the House of David but no King David. No archaeological evidence of Solomon's Temple.

Ignorance about evolution which is not just "random methods" or a "random process".

Abysmal ignorance about "Darwinism". Modern evolution is more than Darwin. Modern evolution is supported by a massive body of evidence.

A fairy story of "information technology" in cells.

 

[Astrophile]

Thank-you for your clarification of beliefs and positions of logic. Now let me clarify: I don’t believe in God on the basis of Him being made of different stuff or even His powers. Those things are more like conclusions that “fit” the data, which is the inspired word. The most intelligent reason to believe in God, IMHO, is when we acknowledge that He has taken credit for doing things that no human can do or has done. For example, God essentially takes credit for “common ancestry” of humans back to a single pair. The same can be said for many “kinds” of plants and animals. Yet, this is VERY different from the idea of “universal common ancestry” (UCA) which lacks credible evidence. But the more impressive and ostensibly less-debatable fact is found in two branches of science called history and archaeology. These sciences have confirmed the veracity of much of the Bible’s stated historic events. Add to this the fact of multiple fulfilled prophecies that span very long lengths of time (from our perspective). The Dead Sea Scrolls were so important because they demolished the argument of some people that these prophecies were simply made up AFTER the events occurred.

This thread is not about history, archaeology or Biblical criticism, so I don't want to discuss these subjects, even if I was qualified to do so. You might get a different view of the historical reliability of the Bible if you were to read The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (published 2001), and The Unauthorized Version by Robin Lane Fox (published 1991).

BYW, if you are one who believes in UCA, I would suggest that you study cell biology and chemistry more, with a focus on genes. Where did they come from? Can you build one, using random methods? What problems occur frequently when you try to do this? What “natural processes” attest to the fragility of genes? Could a random process ever create a complex and specific gene “sentence” that goes on for thousands upon thousands of DNA molecules without the ubiquitous stop codons appearing? Yet, when this gene is mutated or changed in any way, disease occurs. Furthermore, many or most of these diseases are virtually untouchable by natural selection—they cannot be removed from the population genome because they largely fail to kill the individual until AFTER reproduction has occurred.

I am an astronomer, not a biologist; what little I know about biology is what I have read in books. In my opinion, only people who have at least a Ph.D. in a biological subject and several years of post-doctoral experience are qualified to express an opinion on evolution. If you want answers to these questions you will have to ask biologists with these qualifications.

Are you familiar with the terms "genetic erosion" and "genetic entropy"? A sufficient study of these things should shake Darwinian beliefs (i.e. UCA) to the core.

I looked up these terms. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion , genetic erosion is only important in endangered species with small populations, so I don't see what relevance it has to evolution. Most of the links for 'genetic entropy' are creationist sites. However, I found informative reviews - https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/ - of Michael Behe's book Edge of Evolution and John Sanford's book Genetic Entropy; perhaps you should read these reviews as well.

No credible naturalistic mechanism has been demonstrated which can assemble complex specific information into a chemical language that can be "read" by other molecules and systems. The blithe reply of most Darwinists is that "evolution did it". But the only proof they can supply is that "we are here". This represents atrocious logic. You must know the details of how to build a house before you can comment on or criticize the ostensible builder. The problem is that so many talking heads exist, like Dawkins, who have not built anything. They don't know the appropriate facts of chemistry and cell biology. "Evolution" is not a CAUSE, it's an EFFECT. It is merely an observed phenomenon of change over time. Saying that "evolution" caused anything represents circular reasoning and nothing more. Saying that natural selection caused anything is also circular--it is merely an observation. Real causation of biological life on earth must be grounded in knowledge of information technology within cells. Where does such I.T. come from? Every undisputed example we could cite says that it comes from intelligence.

As I have already said, this is out of my field. If you dispute the evidence for evolution and if you really want answers to these questions, I can only suggest that you read as many books and scientific papers on the subject as you can find, and take at least a first degree in biology.

 

[WisdomSpy]

I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. That includes the God claim.

You can convince me with evidence of his existence but that wouldn't automatically mean I would worship him.

If the Bible really is the accurate description of his character than I would feel compelled to fight him and his supporters with any means necessary.

I wonder... what do you object to in, oh, let's say, Matthew chapter 5, as one example? And what do you worship? If you extrapolated whatever that might be to the entire world, would it really be a better place? Have you seriously thought about what would be required to achieve world peace? Could it ever be done without justice being enforced?

 

[WisdomSpy]

This thread is not about history, archaeology or Biblical criticism, so I don't want to discuss these subjects, even if I was qualified to do so. You might get a different view of the historical reliability of the Bible if you were to read The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (published 2001), and The Unauthorized Version by Robin Lane Fox (published 1991).



I am an astronomer, not a biologist; what little I know about biology is what I have read in books. In my opinion, only people who have at least a Ph.D. in a biological subject and several years of post-doctoral experience are qualified to express an opinion on evolution. If you want answers to these questions you will have to ask biologists with these qualifications.



I looked up these terms. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion , genetic erosion is only important in endangered species with small populations, so I don't see what relevance it has to evolution. Most of the links for 'genetic entropy' are creationist sites. However, I found informative reviews - https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/ - of Michael Behe's book Edge of Evolution and John Sanford's book Genetic Entropy; perhaps you should read these reviews as well.



As I have already said, this is out of my field. If you dispute the evidence for evolution and if you really want answers to these questions, I can only suggest that you read as many books and scientific papers on the subject as you can find, and take at least a first degree in biology.

I am well aware of the criticisms of Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity". I would suggest that you set this aside temporarily at least, since a lot of other relevant information exists in his books--data which cannot be denied. He documents the actual history of millions of mutations, acted upon by natural selection... and the extent of "evolution" that resulted. When you recognize the stark limitations of mutations + natural selection, Darwinian ideas of origins loose all credibility. Yes, evolution is true, in a limited sense. Evolutionary origins, however (meaning the idea that all forms of life originated by natural processes only), is nothing but a hypothesis or theory which is far from being supported by data which is indisputable.

 

[Speedwell]

I am well aware of the criticisms of Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity". I would suggest that you set this aside temporarily at least, since a lot of other relevant information exists in his books--data which cannot be denied. He documents the actual history of millions of mutations, acted upon by natural selection... and the extent of "evolution" that resulted. When you recognize the stark limitations of mutations + natural selection, Darwinian ideas of origins loose all credibility. Yes, evolution is true, in a limited sense. Evolutionary origins, however (meaning the idea that all forms of life originated by natural processes only), is nothing but a hypothesis or theory which is far from being supported by data which is indisputable.

So what's your theory?

 

[RealityCheck01]

I am well aware of the criticisms of Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity".

That is not in the post you replied to. However you may not know a major criticism of Behe's irreducible complexity - it is an idea that is ignorant about evolution. Evolution is not just structures with a given functionality changing. Evolution is also structures changing their function. This makes the idea invalid. The fact that all of his examples are wrong (they have evolutionary explanations) is almost incidental!

Parroting what looks like Behe's ignorance and/or lies about "stark limitations" is bad. Evolution has not been Darwinism for many decades. Darwinism today describes those who emphasize mutations + natural selection over the other mechanisms of evolution

• Natural selection
• Biased mutation
• Genetic drift
• Genetic hitchhiking
• Gene flow

In general biologists researching animals emphasize natural selection, biologists researching at the molecular level emphasize the genetic mechanisms.

There are no limits on evolution that stop "evolutionary origins".

It is a lie that "evolutionary origins" is unsupported by data. We have dozens of observations of speciation through natural processes.
Sounds like: Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

...seriously?? is this still going?? How many ways can you be told you're wrong before you get it @xianghua ?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

...seriously?? is this still going?? How many ways can you be told you're wrong before you get it @xianghua ?

In his own mind he isn't wrong, so this could go on and on and on ad infinitum.

 

[WisdomSpy]

So what's your theory?

Very simply, I am searching for the theory which best correlates with the existing genomic data. Much of the data which is used by evolutionists to argue for “common descent” can be used just as well to argue for a “common designer”. For example; all automobiles have numerous things in common (i.e. wheels and rims and bearings, etc.). It would be ridiculous to assert that this commonality says anything about origins.

Too many people have been making too many assumptions and jumping to too many conclusions. Of course, the next argument that atheists usually pose is the “bad design” arguments (pointing out numerous apparent flaws in nature, such as the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve). However, as I said before, if you have never built something yourself, you will obviously be unaware of certain operational restrictions or pragmatic necessities which may exist in various processes of implementation. The other mistake is assuming that all “mistakes” can be attributed to the original designer(s). Da Vinci might have created “perfect” paintings initially… but they are certainly not perfect now.

The Creation paradigm should never be oversimplified by doubters and scoffers. “Sin” entered the world, with natural consequences and some imposed consequences. Not surprising that evidence can be found in nature and in genomics. For example; I don’t think pseudo genes were likely part of the original creation.

Hence, if we were to recover and sequence the entire genome of the “ancient” Taimyr Wolf (from Siberia) and compare it carefully to a modern wolf genome, we should be able to discern which paradigm “fits” the actual data. I believe it is going to fit the Creation paradigm. I am still waiting for the tabulation and publication of the gene and pseudogene data. What is your prediction of what it will show? Remember that Darwin’s general idea of origins is of naturalistic simple-to-complex progression. Apply that to genes and pseudogenes.

Hint: single-celled organisms apparently need a minimum of about 1500-2000 genes to function (and relatively few, if any epigenetic regulatory elements). Of course, they lack the genes and epigenetics to produce arms, legs, eyes, ears, brains, skin, livers, etc. If you believe in Darwinism (for lack of a better word) then you must demonstrate the existence of a competent and extremely prolific natural mechanism for generating the complex specific information to build all these things. This is what is completely missing from all the literature produced by Darwin and subsequent Evolution Theorists. Only wild speculation is offered.

Now, face the real facts: Craig Venter (see “the first artificial cell”) unwittingly demonstrated that Intelligent Design/Creation actually works. However, we have no actual scientific data to support a presumption that random undirected purposeless natural processes can do what Venter did. In fact, just the opposite is true—plenty of evidence suggests strongly that it cannot be done. This is exactly why some have jumped to the conclusion of “ancient aliens”. Why not instead accept the idea that is supported by history and archaeology?

 

[xianghua]

Only in your imagination of self-replicating cars, watches and robots.

tell this to prof dawkins who use this analogy too. so i guess that according to you dawkins doesnt understand biology either

 

[Speedwell]

Very simply, I am searching for the theory which best correlates with the existing genomic data. Much of the data which is used by evolutionists to argue for “common descent” can be used just as well to argue for a “common designer”. For example; all automobiles have numerous things in common (i.e. wheels and rims and bearings, etc.). It would be ridiculous to assert that this commonality says anything about origins.

Too many people have been making too many assumptions and jumping to too many conclusions. Of course, the next argument that atheists usually pose is the “bad design” arguments (pointing out numerous apparent flaws in nature, such as the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve). However, as I said before, if you have never built something yourself, you will obviously be unaware of certain operational restrictions or pragmatic necessities which may exist in various processes of implementation. The other mistake is assuming that all “mistakes” can be attributed to the original designer(s). Da Vinci might have created “perfect” paintings initially… but they are certainly not perfect now.

The Creation paradigm should never be oversimplified by doubters and scoffers. “Sin” entered the world, with natural consequences and some imposed consequences. Not surprising that evidence can be found in nature and in genomics. For example; I don’t think pseudo genes were likely part of the original creation.

Hence, if we were to recover and sequence the entire genome of the “ancient” Taimyr Wolf (from Siberia) and compare it carefully to a modern wolf genome, we should be able to discern which paradigm “fits” the actual data. I believe it is going to fit the Creation paradigm. I am still waiting for the tabulation and publication of the gene and pseudogene data. What is your prediction of what it will show? Remember that Darwin’s general idea of origins is of naturalistic simple-to-complex progression. Apply that to genes and pseudogenes.

Hint: single-celled organisms apparently need a minimum of about 1500-2000 genes to function (and relatively few, if any epigenetic regulatory elements). Of course, they lack the genes and epigenetics to produce arms, legs, eyes, ears, brains, skin, livers, etc. If you believe in Darwinism (for lack of a better word) then you must demonstrate the existence of a competent and extremely prolific natural mechanism for generating the complex specific information to build all these things. This is what is completely missing from all the literature produced by Darwin and subsequent Evolution Theorists. Only wild speculation is offered.

Now, face the real facts: Craig Venter (see “the first artificial cell”) unwittingly demonstrated that Intelligent Design/Creation actually works. However, we have no actual scientific data to support a presumption that random undirected purposeless natural processes can do what Venter did. In fact, just the opposite is true—plenty of evidence suggests strongly that it cannot be done. This is exactly why some have jumped to the conclusion of “ancient aliens”. Why not instead accept the idea that is supported by history and archaeology?

All that and still not even the hint of a theory. You appear to have nothing to say but "evolution can't work so it must have been designed," grotesquely misrepresenting evolution as you go. For instance, you denounce evolution as a "random undirected purposeless natural process." How do you know it is purposeless?

 

[xianghua]

No

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/gu53f12358.gif

There are lots of natural formations that look man made. General shape alone is not how you determine that statue is man made. Not a single basic shape in that statue is entirely beyond natural formation, statistically unlikely as it may be for all those shapes to come together. Rather, the actual reason one would conclude that it must be man made is the fact that the image you provided was of a sand sculpture, and sand doesn't hold shapes like that. Were it made of rock, it would be traits we associate with tool usage and history of the object that inform us that it is man made, not its shape.

so the statue of liberty by itself isnt a good evidence of design?

 

[xianghua]

No one has watched animals being designed.

not realy:

https://www.nature.com/articles/473403a

 

[xianghua]

16 July 2018 xianghua: Ignorance about cars and/or evolution - we do not add parts to cars at random, evolution s not only mutations.

but you can choose any step in the process. like natural selection.

 

[WisdomSpy]

That is not in the post you replied to. However you may not know a major criticism of Behe's irreducible complexity - it is an idea that is ignorant about evolution. Evolution is not just structures with a given functionality changing. Evolution is also structures changing their function. This makes the idea invalid. The fact that all of his examples are wrong (they have evolutionary explanations) is almost incidental!

Parroting what looks like Behe's ignorance and/or lies about "stark limitations" is bad. Evolution has not been Darwinism for many decades. Darwinism today describes those who emphasize mutations + natural selection over the other mechanisms of evolution

• Natural selection
• Biased mutation
• Genetic drift
• Genetic hitchhiking
• Gene flow

In general biologists researching animals emphasize natural selection, biologists researching at the molecular level emphasize the genetic mechanisms.

There are no limits on evolution that stop "evolutionary origins".

It is a lie that "evolutionary origins" is unsupported by data. We have dozens of observations of speciation through natural processes.

Sounds like: Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

Speciation is NOT evidence for an uphill genetic process. Speciation (defined by the loss of ability to breed with ancestors) occurs by genetic erosion, among other things. Natural selection reduces alleles and gene forms, it doesn’t build them. Genetic drift doesn’t build genes. Behe’s undeniable data regarding the millions of generations of the AIDS virus, the malaria parasite, Lenski’s E. coli and other examples shows that all of the speculative wizardly things that you have mentioned (and others which you did not) “did not do much of anything” to these genomes ( a quote from the book). No newly-formed completely unique genes sprang up by any natural process. No upward progression, no advancement of complex specific information occurred, such as would move in the direction of adding arms, legs, eyes, etc. Hence, genomically downhill “evolution” is certainly true, and amazingly, it produces wide variety (such as all the types of dogs). But dogs have much shorter life spans and they have more diseases that their ancestor (the Gray Wolf or very similar creature). Did you know that even today, a Wolf in captivity lives an average of 20.4 years old? What dog lives that long? And why not? The answer is “the loss of genetic diversity”—in other words, although dogs show an amazing variety of traits that the wolf does not, these traits were apparently present in the ancestor’s genome and only became expressed when a downhill process of genomic change occurred over time (i.e. downhill “evolution”). Where did the wolf’s genes come from initially? How can natural selection or any other process touch, manipulate or influence genes and genetic traits that are NOT expressed? Please tell me.

 

[Speedwell]

Speciation is NOT evidence for an uphill genetic process. Speciation (defined by the loss of ability to breed with ancestors) occurs by genetic erosion, among other things. Natural selection reduces alleles and gene forms, it doesn’t build them. Genetic drift doesn’t build genes. Behe’s undeniable data regarding the millions of generations of the AIDS virus, the malaria parasite, Lenski’s E. coli and other examples shows that all of the speculative wizardly things that you have mentioned (and others which you did not) “did not do much of anything” to these genomes ( a quote from the book). No newly-formed completely unique genes sprang up by any natural process. No upward progression, no advancement of complex specific information occurred, such as would move in the direction of adding arms, legs, eyes, etc. Hence, genomically downhill “evolution” is certainly true, and amazingly, it produces wide variety (such as all the types of dogs). But dogs have much shorter life spans and they have more diseases that their ancestor (the Gray Wolf or very similar creature). Did you know that even today, a Wolf in captivity lives an average of 20.4 years old? What dog lives that long? And why not? The answer is “the loss of genetic diversity”—in other words, although dogs show an amazing variety of traits that the wolf does not, these traits were apparently present in the ancestor’s genome and only became expressed when a downhill process of genomic change occurred over time (i.e. downhill “evolution”). Where did the wolf’s genes come from initially? How can natural selection or any other process touch, manipulate or influence genes and genetic traits that are NOT expressed? Please tell me.

Where in the world are you getting this pseudoscientific gibberish? I understand that it is important to you for some reason (which you haven't told us) that evolution is false, but really, that screed borders on the hysterical.

 

[RealityCheck01]

but you can choose any step in the process. like natural selection.

17 July 2018 xianghua: A lie that natural selection is a process where steps are chosen
Natural selection is environments (perhaps changing through natural processes) and populations being selected to fit the environments by natural processes.
Car modification are designed by human beings for the purposes of human beings. That is one of the things that makes an example of the human design of cars so inane.

16 July 2018 xianghua: A dumb question about an elephant sand sculpture.

16 July 2018 xianghua: Ignorance about cars and/or evolution - we do not add parts to cars at random, evolution s not only mutations.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Speciation is NOT evidence for an uphill genetic process. ...

A post full of inane ignorance that needs to be recorded.
19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A "uphill genetic process" ignorant statement when evolution has no direction.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A bit of ignorance about the definition of species.
It is not the loss of ability to breed. For example, zebra and horses can breed: Zebroid

zebroid (also zedonk, zorse, zebra mule, zonkey, and zebmule) is the offspring of any cross between a zebra and any other equine: essentially, a zebra hybrid. In most cases, the sire is a zebra stallion. Offspring of a donkey sire and zebra dam, called a zebra hinny, or donkra, do exist but are rare and are usually sterile and infertile. Zebroids have been bred since the 19th century. Charles Darwin noted several zebra hybrids in his works.

Generally a species is a population that does not breed with surrounding populations or produces infertile descendants when they do. The population is "reproductively isolated".
Study of Darwin’s finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations is a new species of finches that have formed as a population of distinctive finches on an island full of other finches.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Natural selection reduces alleles and gene forms" statement .
Natural selection does not eliminate alleles or "gene forms" from populations. As an example you have been naturally selected to depend on a diet containing vitamin C but you still have the broken genes for producing vitamin C. Neutral gene mutations such as a deactivated gene are not selected for or against.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Genetic drift doesn’t build genes" statement
No one expects genetic drift to build genes from scratch, it is a drift within existing gene mutations.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Parrots a Behe lie that the AIDS virus, malaria parasite, Lenski’s E. coli, etc. invalidate evolution.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Real ignorance that that dog breeding is evolution.
When we breed dogs for specific purposes there are problems caused by that breeding. When dogs live in environments such as kennels, they will catch more diseases.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Where did the wolf’s genes come from initially" question.
Ultimately all animals have genes that came from the last universal common ancestor.
Initially: Evolution of the wolf

 

[Astrophile]

Your logic seems to rely upon several presumptions. The first one is that since you cannot explain where God came from or got His intelligence then He must not exist. I don’t follow that logic at all. You also seem to be assuming that God would be made out of the same stuff as life on earth is made of, hence He must have originated by evolution. That is circular and not rational. The third presumption of yours is that you have the ability to examine the entire universe, so as to assure yourself that everywhere else conforms to the same things that you find on earth.

Numerous texts of the Bible tell us that God is not made of the same stuff as we are and He is not bound by the same time constraints that we live under. I am sure you are aware that current physicists believe that the majority of the universe consists of “dark matter” and “dark energy” and that there are at least 11 dimensions to our universe. Knowing this, do you still have the audacity to deny even the possible existence of God?

On further consideration, I now think that the following sentence in my post 3388 is wrong and I withdraw it; I allowed my enthusiasm to run away with me, and I forgot that most Christians accept the reality of evolution and abiogenesis.

The same problem arises with gods or other supernatural beings, who also 'possess higher intelligence and/or experience than Venter'; where did they come from, and how did they acquire their intelligence and experience?

However, I think that my argument against 'ancient aliens' who supposedly 'seeded' the Earth with life is still valid. For the rest, I am not convinced by your argument in the second paragraph of post 3390. As for the possibility of abiogenesis, I must leave that to scientists who are qualified to discuss it.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Unfortunately, I read a previous post ignorant about science.
There is no physical evidence of common ancestry back to a single pair of human beings.
Our most recent common ancestors are members of populations not individuals. The genetic "Eve" and "Adam" did not exist 6000 years ago and thus debunk YEC. The genetic "Eve" and "Adam" change with time. The genetic "Eve" and "Adam" are highly unlikely to have lived at the same time or place.

Deep ignorance that universal common ancestry has no credible evidence when the evidence is easy to find (read the Wikipedia article). Also see: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

There is archaeological evidence for many places and events mentions in the Bible. For example Jericho certainly existed but there is no archaeological evidence for the Bole story about Jericho.
However, there is no or little archaeological evidence for many major events or people in the Bible. No archaeological evidence of cultures being destroyed in a world-wide flood. No evidence of a large Jewish population in Egypt. No evidence of a Pharaoh and army drowning in the Red Sea. A few mentions of the House of David but no King David. No archaeological evidence of Solomon's Temple.

Ignorance about evolution which is not just "random methods" or a "random process".

Abysmal ignorance about "Darwinism". Modern evolution is more than Darwin. Modern evolution is supported by a massive body of evidence.

A fairy story of "information technology" in cells.

Interesting that you mentioned Jericho since it is one of my favorite examples of history and archaeology proving the Bible true. You appear to be unaware of fairly recent archaeological finds. In the following video, note carefully the jars of grain that were found--to me this is one of several facts that can only be reconciled via the Biblical narrative. Grain was like gold--very valuable. Why go off and leave it? Secularist conquerors or even passersby would never do that. It took a powerful influence to motivate the Israelite people to do that.