The FLOOD, God's Great Failure?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Read the first chapter of Genesis. The world is slated to be rehabilitated. God has provided everything you need to believe. However it doesn't come to you by osmosis. I was a hardcore atheist, rejecting the faith of my family. Because of an interest in cosmology, astronomy and biology I learned that the pat answers of secular science is not in fact proof of much. I learned that the universe was created in an unknown process from nothing, including space and time, I learned that biogenesis is a fairy tale. I learned that macro evolution is wracked with serious flaws. My study of logic and philosophy as well as probability lead me to believe that my prior position was untenable.

My studies and life experience took me in the other direction - from Christianity to atheism and secular humanism - about 35 years ago.

I learned that evolution is overwhelmingly likely.

Logic and philosophy ruled the Christian god out for me. I never looked for another.

Oh yes, God knows you exist.

Then He knows more about me than I do about Him. I'm pretty sure that the Christian god does not exist. If that is incorrect, I don't have enough information to correct the error.

Does you god know what I would need to believe?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, I don't disagree. We should be grateful. You think you solved your problems, and perhaps you have to this point, but you will sicken and die, major problems to me, that you cannot solve

Being mortal and susceptible to disease is beyond my control. Yours as well.

 

[shmogie]

Being mortal and susceptible to disease is beyond my control. Yours as well.

No, not really, when you can choose immortality.

 

[idea]

Was this a thread about the flood? about the Earth's baptism by water? there's a baptism by fire too... perhaps that one will clean things up.

 

[shmogie]

My studies and life experience took me in the other direction - from Christianity to atheism and secular humanism - about 35 years ago.

I learned that evolution is overwhelmingly likely.

Logic and philosophy ruled the Christian god out for me. I never looked for another.



Then He knows more about me than I do about Him. I'm pretty sure that the Christian god does not exist. If that is incorrect, I don't have enough information to correct the error.

Does you god know what I would need to believe?

Do YOU know what you would to need to believe ? Macro evolution is far from likely. Abiogenesis the first step in the evolutionary process appears impossible, No scientist has ever explained how it works.

 

[Skwim]

Do YOU know what you would to need to believe ? Macro evolution is far from likely. Abiogenesis the first step in the evolutionary process appears impossible, No scientist has ever explained how it works.

Obviously you've bought into the creationist lie that evolution is depended on abiogenesis. IT ISN'T. If you want to talk intelligently about evolution I suggest you bone up on it a bit.

First Lesson: Evolution does NOT concern itself with first causes. Whether life initially arose through abiogenesis or by the "hand of god" makes no difference.

Second Lesson: Evolution ONLY deals with the process by which organisms change and diversify.

Third Lesson: ALL creationists spokesmen have lied about evolution at some time or another; many doing it many times.

Fourth Lesson: Evolutionists have NO reason to lie.

​

As for "No scientist has ever explained how it works." So what? At one time just about everything lacked an explanation.

.

 

[Daisies4me]

I think that you are confused about what I am posting, Please re read my posts. I totally reject predestination and the lack of free will. Free will is a critical component of salvation. Without free will God has created your robots

 

[Daisies4me]

-------
Not trying to be argumentative, but I believe that people do what they WANT to do. No robots . Just imperfect humans with the ability to make decisions and carry them out. Do you think that God programmed you before you were born to marry the person you chose? Or to like or dislike certain foods? If you have no choice in the matter, then you are no better than an animal acting on instinct. Humans are different from animals because they have the ability to think for themselves, and choose if they want to obey the Creator or not. The human brain is far superior , and so God placed mankind over the animals to take care of them. not the other way around.

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

-------
Not trying to be argumentative, but I believe that people do what they WANT to do. No robots . Just imperfect humans with the ability to make decisions and carry them out. Do you think that God programmed you before you were born to marry the person you chose? Or to like or dislike certain foods? If you have no choice in the matter, then you are no better than an animal acting on instinct. Humans are different from animals because they have the ability to think for themselves, and choose if they want to obey the Creator or not. The human brain is far superior , and so God placed mankind over the animals to take care of them. not the other way around.

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

I am happy that we agree on the existence of free will. Sorry if I misunderstood your statement.

 

[Cobol]

He screwed up more than the flood.

The Christian fundamentalist god is a colossal screwup. Anyone who reads the Bible can see for themselves that he just can’t do anything right. He designs an originally beautiful and immaculate creation which almost immediately becomes polluted with sin, suffering and death. Both times he tries his hand at creating free will, his created beings immediately turn around and reject him.

He chooses a people and continually attempts to redeem them from their fallen state, attempts which continually prove to be complete failures. He dispenses punishments for the evildoers and the wicked that utterly fail to stem the spread of evil and wickedness. He deals with crimes and transgressions by lashing out in childish rage, killing not just the evildoer but, often, all the innocent people around him.

His final, crowning attempt to save the world from its sin was almost unanimously rejected by his chosen people. And his repeated promises to return to the Earth to set everything right have now been thoroughly broken. I find it impossible to believe that an omniscient and omnipotent deity, if there was such a being, could so consistently and thoroughly screw up; the contradiction between what this god is claimed to be able to do and what I am told he did do is so stark that it defies all reason that such a being could actually exist.

He is such a sorry excuse for a deity that he would be deserving of no one’s worship – which makes the audacity of his followers all the more incredible, to insist in the face of his long string of failures that he is a wise and loving ruler worthy of our adoration!

There are plenty more of god's notable blunders not mentioned.

 

[shmogie]

First lesson- biochemists refer to the alleged stages in pre organism chemical reaction using evolution as a term to describe what is occurring and in the process. The chemicals clump and change properties as part of evolving toward a living organism. Cosmologists refer to the evolution of the universe. Second lesson - biology and related disciplines may define evolution as as chance variations in an organism sweeping a population and changing a population for better adaption, but the term is used in a variety of disciplines not related to living organisms Third lesson- Most biological macro evolutionists have lied about any number of attributes that they believe organisms display as adaption or the result of the evolutionary process, when it can be demonstrated as not being so. Fourth lesson- Evolutionists lie because because they adhere to the theory by faith, and they have just as strong an interest in defending the object of their faith as any religionist defending his, Fifth lesson - The first living organism that began the process would have had to have DNA encoded into very detailed information in the right order with the right timing to operate the machinery of the cell, In addition, it would have to have a system for reading this code and applying the information in the DNA, Since evolutionists in a cowardly fashion refuse to discuss the formation of this organism, lets skip that, and contend that the first living organism from which all others are purported to have evolved shows every hallmark of intelligent design, because the genetic information had to come from somewhere, and there is no natural process that could have provided it. The alleged macro mutations that cause one species or type to change into another species or type is totally entwined with the DNA of the organism. Without the DNA and it's information in the very first organism it could not exist in the resultant ones.

 

[shmogie]

He screwed up more than the flood.

The Christian fundamentalist god is a colossal screwup. Anyone who reads the Bible can see for themselves that he just can’t do anything right. He designs an originally beautiful and immaculate creation which almost immediately becomes polluted with sin, suffering and death. Both times he tries his hand at creating free will, his created beings immediately turn around and reject him.

He chooses a people and continually attempts to redeem them from their fallen state, attempts which continually prove to be complete failures. He dispenses punishments for the evildoers and the wicked that utterly fail to stem the spread of evil and wickedness. He deals with crimes and transgressions by lashing out in childish rage, killing not just the evildoer but, often, all the innocent people around him.

His final, crowning attempt to save the world from its sin was almost unanimously rejected by his chosen people. And his repeated promises to return to the Earth to set everything right have now been thoroughly broken. I find it impossible to believe that an omniscient and omnipotent deity, if there was such a being, could so consistently and thoroughly screw up; the contradiction between what this god is claimed to be able to do and what I am told he did do is so stark that it defies all reason that such a being could actually exist.

He is such a sorry excuse for a deity that he would be deserving of no one’s worship – which makes the audacity of his followers all the more incredible, to insist in the face of his long string of failures that he is a wise and loving ruler worthy of our adoration! Ah mr./ms. sunshine writes again. Opinions are like rectums, everyone has one, and your baseless opinions are duly noted. It's your life believe what you choose. Your anger is interesting though, one wonders why you are so visceral. I find it amusing on the one hand and sad on the other. You have an iron clad guarantee that you will learn if there is a God, good luck with that when the time comes

There are plenty more of god's notable blunders not mentioned.

 

[Cobol]

First lesson- biochemists refer to the alleged stages in pre organism chemical reaction using evolution as a term to describe what is occurring and in the process. The chemicals clump and change properties as part of evolving toward a living organism. Cosmologists refer to the evolution of the universe. Second lesson - biology and related disciplines may define evolution as as chance variations in an organism sweeping a population and changing a population for better adaption, but the term is used in a variety of disciplines not related to living organisms Third lesson- Most biological macro evolutionists have lied about any number of attributes that they believe organisms display as adaption or the result of the evolutionary process, when it can be demonstrated as not being so. Fourth lesson- Evolutionists lie because because they adhere to the theory by faith, and they have just as strong an interest in defending the object of their faith as any religionist defending his, Fifth lesson - The first living organism that began the process would have had to have DNA encoded into very detailed information in the right order with the right timing to operate the machinery of the cell, In addition, it would have to have a system for reading this code and applying the information in the DNA, Since evolutionists in a cowardly fashion refuse to discuss the formation of this organism, lets skip that, and contend that the first living organism from which all others are purported to have evolved shows every hallmark of intelligent design, because the genetic information had to come from somewhere, and there is no natural process that could have provided it. The alleged macro mutations that cause one species or type to change into another species or type is totally entwined with the DNA of the organism. Without the DNA and it's information in the very first organism it could not exist in the resultant ones.

You seem to be counter factual and fatuous, and your post doesn't belong in this thread.

 

[Kenny]

It is actually "arrivederci", but it is not bad. I actually understood it

Ciao

- viole

Gracie! I was kinda thinking in Spanish - the two "r"s should have been a no brainer. I need another cup of coffee.

 

[shmogie]

You seem to be counter factual and fatuous, and your post doesn't belong in this thread.

This wasn't a response to you, it was to another re evolution, disregard it

 

[viole]

Gracie! I was kinda thinking in Spanish - the two "r"s should have been a no brainer. I need another cup of coffee.

Do you mean "Grazie"?

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, not really, when you can choose immortality.

It's pretty much a non-starter to make claims or arguments that begin with unshared premises. There is no reason to believe that we can choose immortality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Apologies to Skwim for the digression. The flood discussion seems to have ended before I arrived.

Do YOU know what you would to need to believe ? Macro evolution is far from likely.

Evolution appears inevitable. We know that DNA mutates and is shuffled as germ cells are formed, that DNA determines the structure and function of an organism, that offspring will have differences in their DNA relative to their parents and siblings, that they will vary physically from their parents and siblings because of these facts, and that these variations can determine their fates.

Every one of those items is a fact. The theory of evolution is simply those facts considered collectively, plus the idea that the process began with a common ancestral cell from which all subsequent life derived.

Abiogenesis the first step in the evolutionary process appears impossible, No scientist has ever explained how it works.

We don't need to know the details of how abiogenesis occurred if indeed it did. They may be forever out of our reach. That fact wouldn't constitute an argument against it. We may have to settle for a variety of possible paths leading to assorted proto-cells with no way of knowing which path nature took.

Abiogenesis may also be inevitable wherever it is possible. Some interesting work is being done in that area by a Jeremy England. From https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

"Why does life exist?

"Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life."

Here's more if you're interested: Origins of Life: A Means to a Thermodynamically Favorable End?

 

[shmogie]

It's pretty much a non-starter to make claims or arguments that begin with unshared premises. There is no reason to believe that we can choose immortality.

There is, but you must accept or deny it on your own, I cannot prove it to you any more than I can prove you are a descendant of rocks that through runoff created the primordial pool from which life aledgedly sprang. You accept or deny based upon faith ultimately.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

First lesson- biochemists refer to the alleged stages in pre organism chemical reaction using evolution as a term to describe what is occurring and in the process. The chemicals clump and change properties as part of evolving toward a living organism. Cosmologists refer to the evolution of the universe. Second lesson - biology and related disciplines may define evolution as as chance variations in an organism sweeping a population and changing a population for better adaption, but the term is used in a variety of disciplines not related to living organisms Third lesson- Most biological macro evolutionists have lied about any number of attributes that they believe organisms display as adaption or the result of the evolutionary process, when it can be demonstrated as not being so. Fourth lesson- Evolutionists lie because because they adhere to the theory by faith, and they have just as strong an interest in defending the object of their faith as any religionist defending his, Fifth lesson - The first living organism that began the process would have had to have DNA encoded into very detailed information in the right order with the right timing to operate the machinery of the cell, In addition, it would have to have a system for reading this code and applying the information in the DNA, Since evolutionists in a cowardly fashion refuse to discuss the formation of this organism, lets skip that, and contend that the first living organism from which all others are purported to have evolved shows every hallmark of intelligent design, because the genetic information had to come from somewhere, and there is no natural process that could have provided it. The alleged macro mutations that cause one species or type to change into another species or type is totally entwined with the DNA of the organism. Without the DNA and it's information in the very first organism it could not exist in the resultant ones.

Arguments about the unlikelihood of abiogenesis have no persuasive power. Life is here, however unlikely that may appear. As far as I can tell, we only have two categories of explanations: either naturalistic abiogenesis occurred on earth or elsewhere and then either seeded earth or evolved elsewhere first, came to earth, and intelligently designed man, or some form of divine creation.

The divine creation hypothesis suffers from its violation of Occam's Razor and the principle of parsimony. What one does when invoking a god hypothesis is to try to account for something that seems unlikely to exist undesigned and uncreated - the first cell - by positing the existence of perhaps the least likely thing we can imagine existing undesigned and uncreated - a god.

The fact appears to be that we must accept one of those ideas or the other however unlikely they seem, and I see no reason to choose the one that requires a god over the one that requires chemistry. I find the Jeremy England idea about life being a self-organizing dissipative structure channeling energy with maximal efficiency. It's the same principle that accounts for tornadoes, hurricanes, and the red spot on Jupiter to organize matter into far-from-equilibrium states in the presence of increased energy such as warmer summers in Oklahoma or warmer oceans in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[shmogie]

Apologies to Skwim for the digression. The flood discussion seems to have ended before I arrived.



Evolution appears inevitable. We know that DNA mutates and is shuffled as germ cells are formed, that DNA determines the structure and function of an organism, that offspring will have differences in their DNA relative to their parents and siblings, that they will vary physically from their parents and siblings because of these facts, and that these variations can determine their fates.

Every one of those items is a fact. The theory of evolution is simply those facts considered collectively, plus the idea that the process began with a common ancestral cell from which all subsequent life derived.



We don't need to know the details of how abiogenesis occurred if indeed it did. They may be forever out of our reach. That fact wouldn't constitute an argument against it. We may have to settle for a variety of possible paths leading to assorted proto-cells with no way of knowing which path nature took.

Abiogenesis may also be inevitable wherever it is possible. Some interesting work is being done in that area by a Jeremy England. From https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

"Why does life exist?

"Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life."

Here's more if you're interested: Origins of Life: A Means to a Thermodynamically Favorable End?

Of course this has never been observed, is not happening now, and has never been replicated. This still begs the question, the first organism could only function by means of an operating system and information to use it. Information doesn't just lie around waiting to be picked up. Even if it did, the first organism would have to have a way to process it, and within the DNA the strands would have to have the information for reproduction, nourishment, survival, respiration etc. in the absolute correct place programmed to function at the absolute right time. So the information would have to exist before the organism lest the organism cease to exist within mili seconds of it;s creation. Even if DNA could form in the primordial soup, why would it have the correct information for an organism that doesn't exist ? Why would it have any information that could be "read" by an organism who's "operating system" doesn't exist ?