The FLOOD, God's Great Failure?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Yes, I understand that.

I have no reason to believe by faith, by which I mean unjustified belief (I realize that the word has other meaning, including justified belief, such as having faith that the car will start again the next time I test it just like it did the last 200 times).

How can faith be a path to truth? If a method of knowing can just as easily be used to believe an idea as its polar opposite, it cannot be trusted.

Actually, faith isn't a path to anything. A path is a guided and directed connection from a starting point to an ending point. It limits where you can go, like a driveway or a tunnel. or maybe a wire for an electric current.

Faith is more like the open ocean. You can go north, or northwest, or south by southeast.

1 + 2+ 3 = 6. You can think of the equal sign as a little path taking us from the addends to the sum. There is no other destination that is true (or correct). This is pure reason, and it is a path to truth.

Now look at this:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

He's telling us that he is capable of believing by faith that 2 + 2 could add to 5. Presumably, by faith, he could believe that they can also add to 13 and 246. There is no path there, and no truth. He's in intellectual free-fall.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course this has never been observed, is not happening now, and has never been replicated.

Why would that be relevant? Are those requirements for something to be true? Are those your standards for considering something possible, without which, you can say they never happened?

Incidentally, we don't expect to ever witness naturalistic abiogenesis whether it occurred in the past or not, so being unable to observe it now is consistent with the hypothesis. Naturalistic abiogenesis occurs over deep time in prebiotic circumstance. We may be able to replicate the process artificially in the lab by bringing all of the necessary ingredients together in sequence in sterile environments, but that's the best we can hope for.

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 ?

Here's that unlikeliness argument again. It's basically an argument of incredulity: You just can't see how that could happen.

Me, neither, but that doesn't mean that it can't or didn't.

Apply your same argument to a god hypothesis. Apply it to the information that might be called the mind of God. How did all of that information get there without an intelligent designer - a meta-god? You don't know, but have no objections, right? That would be a double standard - a special pleading fallacy.

You cannot evaluate this problem properly by taking one of two possible hypothesis, both seemingly unlikely and counterintuitive, separate one hypothesis out, call it unlikely and counterintuitive, and think that you have made a compelling argument for the other.

 

[Kenny]

Do you mean "Grazie"?

Ciao

- viole

YUP! I think the computer changed it.

 

[Kenny]

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.

Just wondering...

I know that viruses mutate. I know that bacteria can mutate due to its environment. But the virus that causes colds, as I understand it, simply mutates into another virus that causes another type of cold. Likewise a bacteria stays within the same genre just adapting to its environment.

Do you know of a virus that went bacterial? Or a virus than mutated into a bacteria? Or a Coccus bacteria turning into a Bacillus bacteria for understanding sake? (as an example)

 

[shmogie]

Why would that be relevant? Are those requirements for something to be true? Are those your standards for considering something possible, without which, you can say they never happened?

Incidentally, we don't expect to ever witness naturalistic abiogenesis whether it occurred in the past or not, so being unable to observe it now is consistent with the hypothesis. Naturalistic abiogenesis occurs over deep time in prebiotic circumstance. We may be able to replicate the process artificially in the lab by bringing all of the necessary ingredients together in sequence in sterile environments, but that's the best we can hope for.



Here's that unlikeliness argument again. It's basically an argument of incredulity: You just can't see how that could happen.

Me, neither, but that doesn't mean that it can't or didn't.

Apply your same argument to a god hypothesis. Apply it to the information that might be called the mind of God. How did all of that information get there without an intelligent designer - a meta-god? You don't know, but have no objections, right? That would be a double standard - a special pleading fallacy.

You cannot evaluate this problem properly by taking one of two possible hypothesis, both seemingly unlikely and counterintuitive, separate one hypothesis out, call it unlikely and counterintuitive, and think that you have made a compelling argument.

my point is simply that one hypothesis is not superior to another, if one is absurd, they both are. If one can only be accepted by faith, they both must be accepted by faith. I have made a compelling argument for the unproved nature of the scientific argument for abiogenesis and macro evolution. It is not fact, it is an idea, nothing more. You and I are creatures of this universe, it will always be so for all humans. We are totally ignorant of the what's and why's outside the universe, the universe came about from outside the universe. Therefore to speculate what must or must not be re God, who is outside the universe, is a worthless exercise. I see you adhere to the " with enough time even the impossible can become possible" school. As Sir Fred Hoyle said "how many tornado's would it take to turn an airplane junkyard into a fully functional 747 ?" I go further, since an an airplane is simple compared to life, the paraphrase must be, " how many tornado's will it take to mine the metal, process it, make the rubber and plastic for components and wire covering, shape the metal into components that can be left lying about for the next series of tornado's to assemble a functional 747. I have taken a graduate course in "probability". Using the tools of probability, many well qualified people , both believers and atheists, have stated that by the laws of probability, it is impossible for life to have sprung into existence from non life. The odds are so infinitely small that 14 billion years is not enough time for it to have come about by chance,

 

[shmogie]

Just wondering...

I know that viruses mutate. I know that bacteria can mutate due to its environment. But the virus that causes colds, as I understand it, simply mutates into another virus that causes another type of cold. Likewise a bacteria stays within the same genre just adapting to its environment.

Do you know of a virus that went bacterial? Or a virus than mutated into a bacteria? Or a Coccus bacteria turning into a Bacillus bacteria for understanding sake? (as an example)

Viruses must have a host with DNA to replicate. As far as I know viruses cannot turn into bacteria because they do not have DNA. All organisms have the ability to adapt to an environment, witness Darwin's finches. However, it is extremely problematic to understand how a finch could morph into a walrus. These kinds of changes would require millions of dead end and intermediary forms, which are not found in the fossil record. We have organisms of abundantly different types, but few if any of these link types, Where are they ? If macro evolution is true, they had to exist

 

[Kenny]

Viruses must have a host with DNA to replicate. As far as I know viruses cannot turn into bacteria because they do not have DNA. All organisms have the ability to adapt to an environment, witness Darwin's finches. However, it is extremely problematic to understand how a finch could morph into a walrus. These kinds of changes would require millions of dead end and intermediary forms, which are not found in the fossil record. We have organisms of abundantly different types, but few if any of these link types, Where are they ? If macro evolution is true, they had to exist

That's the problem I having today. Where are the links.

I checked talk origins for such items and all they have are hypothesis 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Even Berkley Macroevolution offers theories but no hard-core examples.

It says from insects came the anthropoids--but where is the in between? (If I read their diagram correctly)

And if, as their chart shows, the tree of something starting and then branching into many parts, doesn't logic say we should be having more of it today than every before?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just wondering...

I know that viruses mutate. I know that bacteria can mutate due to its environment. But the virus that causes colds, as I understand it, simply mutates into another virus that causes another type of cold. Likewise a bacteria stays within the same genre just adapting to its environment.

Do you know of a virus that went bacterial? Or a virus than mutated into a bacteria? Or a Coccus bacteria turning into a Bacillus bacteria for understanding sake? (as an example)

No. I don't.

Should I? Do you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

my point is simply that one hypothesis is not superior to another

My point was the opposite.

if one is absurd, they both are.

Why would that be? They are very different ideas.

If one can only be accepted by faith, they both must be accepted by faith.

Why? I Accept evolution as likely, and no faith is needed.

I have made a compelling argument for the unproved nature of the scientific argument for abiogenesis and macro evolution.

Yes you have. It doesn't make them wrong.

Neither proof nor faith is part of the process.

It is not fact, it is an idea, nothing more.

Facts are a particular type of idea.

You and I are creatures of this universe, it will always be so for all humans. We are totally ignorant of the what's and why's outside the universe, the universe came about from outside the universe. Therefore to speculate what must or must not be re God, who is outside the universe, is a worthless exercise.

Agree. I reject speculations about gods.

I see you adhere to the " with enough time even the impossible can become possible" school. As Sir Fred Hoyle said "how many tornado's would it take to turn an airplane junkyard into a fully functional 747 ?"

I don't know. Probably no junkyard contains all of the parts of one, so I'mgoing to guess that it could never happen..

I also don't see the relevance here.

I go further, since an an airplane is simple compared to life, the paraphrase must be, " how many tornado's will it take to mine the metal, process it, make the rubber and plastic for components and wire covering, shape the metal into components that can be left lying about for the next series of tornado's to assemble a functional 747.

Simplicity is not the relevant quality here. Great complexity can arise from a process that advances incrementally and preserves its prior progress.

I have taken a graduate course in "probability". Using the tools of probability, many well qualified people , both believers and atheists, have stated that by the laws of probability, it is impossible for life to have sprung into existence from non life. The odds are so infinitely small that 14 billion years is not enough time for it to have come about by chance,

You have to set up the problem correctly for the laws of statistics to be applicable to the matter at hand.

Those arguments misrepresent the process. They calculate the odds of every ingredient of a cell finding every other ingredient at the same time for no reason and with no directing influence other than chance. That's what the junkyard 747 represents. Nobody is suggesting that that is what happened.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Viruses must have a host with DNA to replicate. As far as I know viruses cannot turn into bacteria because they do not have DNA. All organisms have the ability to adapt to an environment, witness Darwin's finches. However, it is extremely problematic to understand how a finch could morph into a walrus. These kinds of changes would require millions of dead end and intermediary forms, which are not found in the fossil record. We have organisms of abundantly different types, but few if any of these link types, Where are they ? If macro evolution is true, they had to exist

Your biological knowledge needs some beefing up. Some viruses do have DNA: DNA virus - Wikipedia

And nobody is claiming that finches morphed into walruses.

Once again, the theory is not about what hasn't been found yet. It's about what has been found.

 

[Kenny]

No. I don't.

Should I? Do you?

Obviously not... that's why I was asking. Didn't know if you knew something I didn't.

 

[shmogie]

Your biological knowledge needs some beefing up. Some viruses do have DNA: DNA virus - Wikipedia

And nobody is claiming that finches morphed into walruses.

Once again, the theory is not about what hasn't been found yet. It's about what has been found.

No

Your biological knowledge needs some beefing up. Some viruses do have DNA: DNA virus - Wikipedia

And nobody is claiming that finches morphed into walruses.

Once again, the theory is not about what hasn't been found yet. It's about what has been found.

So, little or no proof of the linkages between types or species, so just fill in the missing links with imaginary ones. My education and training is in the law, and certainly when there is no evidence you cannot extrapolate by imagination that there is.

 

[shmogie]

Your biological knowledge needs some beefing up. Some viruses do have DNA: DNA virus - Wikipedia

And nobody is claiming that finches morphed into walruses.

Once again, the theory is not about what hasn't been found yet. It's about what has been found.

BTW, said "as far as I know" re viruses in DNA, the question was are they turning into bacteria ? But Evolutionists claim that primitive simple celled organisms turned into every form of life that exists, Seems to me that a finch turning ultimately into a walrus is an easier claim.

 

[shmogie]

My point was the opposite.



Why would that be? They are very different ideas.



Why? I Accept evolution as likely, and no faith is needed.



Yes you have. It doesn't make them wrong.

Neither proof nor faith is part of the process.



Facts are a particular type of idea.



Agree. I reject speculations about gods.



I don't know. Probably no junkyard contains all of the parts of one, so I'mgoing to guess that it could never happen..

I also don't see the relevance here.



Simplicity is not the relevant quality here. Great complexity can arise from a process that advances incrementally and preserves its prior progress.



You have to set up the problem correctly for the laws of statistics to be applicable to the matter at hand.

Those arguments misrepresent the process. They calculate the odds of every ingredient of a cell finding every other ingredient at the same time for no reason and with no directing influence other than chance. That's what the junkyard 747 represents. Nobody is suggesting that that is what happened.

But of course chance is the only causation factor. The chance the planet is in a relatively rare spiral galaxy, the chance that the planet is in an extended arm of that galaxy, the chance that the planet is the correct distance from it's star (the Goldielocks zone), the chance that there would be outer larger planets that would absorb the meteors that bombard the other planets, the chance that an ozone layer would develop to absorb deadly rays from the sun, the chance that weather would develop to provide water, the chance that the rock of the planet would have the exact composition to provide the chemicals for abiogenesis, the chance that the environment is perfect for the development of life, the chance that the chemicals could all come together in a perfect fashion to produce a living organism, the chance that the same organism is made again and again so a population could reproduce, the chance that the environment always stays hospitable for life to evolve,chance that the environment stays hospitable for the evolving life. It's all chance ! A series of unguided coincidents in a chance universe. Take away one, life becomes difficult, take away two, life becomes possible in a statistical mini fraction , take away three, life as we know it is impossible. Life is the result of chances equivilant of being dealt a royal flush in a poker hand 300 times in a row, only more difficult. I don't recall the evolutionists name, a prominent biochemist, who said " this is impossible to have occurred, but it did ", If this isn't blind faith, I don't know what is.

 

[Skwim]

But of course chance is the only causation factor. The chance the planet is in a relatively rare spiral galaxy,

"Spiral galaxies are the most common type in the universe."
source

the chance that the planet is in an extended arm of that galaxy, the chance that the planet is the correct distance from it's star (the Goldielocks zone), the chance that there would be outer larger planets that would absorb the meteors that bombard the other planets, the chance that an ozone layer would develop to absorb deadly rays from the sun, the chance that weather would develop to provide water, the chance that the rock of the planet would have the exact composition to provide the chemicals for abiogenesis, the chance that the environment is perfect for the development of life, the chance that the chemicals could all come together in a perfect fashion to produce a living organism, the chance that the same organism is made again and again so a population could reproduce, the chance that the environment always stays hospitable for life to evolve,chance that the environment stays hospitable for the evolving life. It's all chance ! A series of unguided coincidents in a chance universe. Take away one, life becomes difficult, take away two, life becomes possible in a statistical mini fraction , take away three, life as we know it is impossible. Life is the result of chances equivilant of being dealt a royal flush in a poker hand 300 times in a row, only more difficult.

1) A different type of galaxy would make absolutely no difference.
2) That it's in an extended arm of that galaxy makes absolutely no difference.
3) Meteors that hit other planets aren't on a path that would intersect earth anyway.

That's three strikes and you're out.

I don't recall the evolutionists name, a prominent biochemist, who said " this is impossible to have occurred, but it did ", If this isn't blind faith, I don't know what is.

Then it's a name not worth remembering anyway.

.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No

So, little or no proof of the linkages between types or species, so just fill in the missing links with imaginary ones. My education and training is in the law, and certainly when there is no evidence you cannot extrapolate by imagination that there is.

The evidence for the theory is overwhelming. Proof isn't part of it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

BTW, said "as far as I know" re viruses in DNA, the question was are they turning into bacteria ?

No. They do infect some, however.

But Evolutionists claim that primitive simple celled organisms turned into every form of life that exists

That's a part of Darwin's great theory. The evidence supports it.

Seems to me that a finch turning ultimately into a walrus is an easier claim.

Well, nobody is claiming that that happened. They both evolved from a common reptilian ancestor along separate pathways.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But of course chance is the only causation factor. The chance the planet is in a relatively rare spiral galaxy, the chance that the planet is in an extended arm of that galaxy, the chance that the planet is the correct distance from it's star (the Goldielocks zone), the chance that there would be outer larger planets that would absorb the meteors that bombard the other planets, the chance that an ozone layer would develop to absorb deadly rays from the sun, the chance that weather would develop to provide water, the chance that the rock of the planet would have the exact composition to provide the chemicals for abiogenesis, the chance that the environment is perfect for the development of life, the chance that the chemicals could all come together in a perfect fashion to produce a living organism, the chance that the same organism is made again and again so a population could reproduce, the chance that the environment always stays hospitable for life to evolve,chance that the environment stays hospitable for the evolving life. It's all chance ! A series of unguided coincidences in a chance universe. Take away one, life becomes difficult, take away two, life becomes possible in a statistical mini fraction , take away three, life as we know it is impossible. Life is the result of chances equivilent of being dealt a royal flush in a poker hand 300 times in a row, only more difficult. I don't recall the evolutionists name, a prominent biochemist, who said " this is impossible to have occurred, but it did ", If this isn't blind faith, I don't know what is.

Your statistical analysis is faulty.

Everything that happens is unlikely because there are so many possible arrangements of anything that each is very unlikely. What are the odds that somebody would be born on the exact second that you were born, in the hospital that you were born in, to the parents that produced you, was given the exact name that you were given, have the sequence of DNA that only you have, be given exactly the Social Security number you were given, have the address and telephone number that you presently have as well as all that have come before, and have exactly the bills that you have in your wallet right now with those exact serial numbers?

That's another statistical illusion.

Abiogenesis is probably more likely than that. Life is likely to be discovered to be inevitable wherever it is possible.

Let's see your calculations for the likelihood of a god existing.

 

[shmogie]

"Spiral galaxies are the most common type in the universe."
source



1) A different type of galaxy would make absolutely no difference.
2) That it's in an extended arm of that galaxy makes absolutely no difference.
3) Meteors that hit other planets aren't on a path that would intersect earth anyway.

That's three strikes and you're out.

Then it's a name not worth remembering anyway.

.

Wrong on all three strikes, they are balls. 1) spiral galaxy with arms, with the planet on the outer edge between arms, protects the planet from intense gamma rays, increased possibility of being effected by supernovae, gravity disturbances and related problems by closer groups of stars, too much metalicity Comets are as destructive or more destructive than meteors, Jupiters huge gravity as it rotates the sun effects and collects comets. Strikes of comets would be much more common without Jupiter, and disasterous as well. Spiral galaxies account for 60% of galaxies, of these 2/3 are of barred type. The milky way is a non barred spiral galaxy, 1/3 of 60% is relatively rare, I take first base, the umpire is replaced.

 

[shmogie]

Your statistical analysis is faulty.

Everything that happens is unlikely because there are so many possible arrangements of anything that each is very unlikely. What are the odds that somebody would be born on the exact second that you were born, in the hospital that you were born in, to the parents that produced you, was given the exact name that you were given, have the sequence of DNA that only you have, be given exactly the Social Security number you were given, have the address and telephone number that you presently have as well as all that have come before, and have exactly the bills that you have in your wallet right now with those exact serial numbers?

That's another statistical illusion.

Abiogenesis is probably more likely than that. Life is likely to be discovered to be inevitable wherever it is possible.

Let's see your calculations for the likelihood of a god existing.

It is impossible for your example to have occurred. To this point, it is impossible for abiogenesis to have occurred.
The likelihood of God existing is 50%, he does, or he doesn't. The same liklihood of him not existing, 50%