The FLOOD, God's Great Failure?

[shmogie]

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.

Well of course abiogenesis and resultant evolution violate an even stronger law than Occams razor, the law that says order degenerates into chaos, the exact opposite of abiogenesis leading to evolution, leading to masses of complex diverse life forms. Occams razor proclaims the simplest solution is the best, However, that requires a judgement of what is simplest, I guess you and I disagree here

 

[shmogie]

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

The evidence for the theory is very underwhelming ! Cumulative evidence leads to proof

 

[Skwim]

Well of course abiogenesis and resultant evolution violate an even stronger law than Occams razor, the law that says order degenerates into chaos, the exact opposite of abiogenesis leading to evolution, leading to masses of complex diverse life forms. Occams razor proclaims the simplest solution is the best, However, that requires a judgement of what is simplest, I guess you and I disagree here

Ever hear of the old maxim, "A little learning is a dangerous thing"? Might want to consider it.

In the mean time I suggest you Google "Occam's razor," and read it, carefully!

.

 

[Skwim]

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%

Kind of like the likelihood that the Earth is flat: 50%. Either it is or it's not.
Or that 5 divided by 4 = 2,122: 50%. Either it is or it's not.
Or that god is an East Pacific Red Octopus: 50%. Either he is or he isn't
Or that I'm Jesus Christ: 50%. Either I am or I'm not.

I suggest a course in Introduction to Probability - The Science of Uncertainty

.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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%

How about vampires? 50/50 as well? It's the same yes-or-no proposition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well of course abiogenesis and resultant evolution violate an even stronger law than Occams razor, the law that says order degenerates into chaos, the exact opposite of abiogenesis leading to evolution, leading to masses of complex diverse life forms. Occams razor proclaims the simplest solution is the best, However, that requires a judgement of what is simplest, I guess you and I disagree here

Abiogenesis and evolution do not violate thermodynamics.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

"A little leaven leavens the whole lump" I think it was Gods way of showing us that he can't even leave someone like Noah alive. A flood won't fix things, which is why there is a "last day".

I'm glad God is "man" enough to admit He created a planet and doesn't know how to make it work...

I see success everywhere.

Well, I see humans have to clean up the mess left by the Creator of said universe.

It had more to do with God's omniscience in foreseeing the need to teach humans a valuable lesson.

God is incompetent? Petty? Unable to punish just the bad students without burning the entire school to the ground? Hypocritical (God saves a righteous man who then goes and gets wasted and then curses some grandkid because a son of his found out he can't hold his liquor)?

It was not intended to fix the state of the human race just yet

Then why do it at all? Obviously sin still existed afterward. If you're going to be lazy about it and wait a few more millennia, just deal with it then?

To basically cleanse the earth of unrighteousness.

What did the fawn do? The infant human? The mosquito?

According to these verses, sin and corruption was prevailing amongst the God’s creation (human population).

So God's a bad manager?

Please in future read the Holy Bible with Faith and not to look at grey areas that makes you a Questioning Monster.

As a fellow Christian, please stop making an ancient set of texts into a deified idol. It's blasphemous.

Are you saying that we should have been created as obedient puppets?

Adam is a dirt puppet. So ... yes?

That purpose, restated often throughout the Bible is for humans to live forever on this earth free from war and crime and sickness and death. Even those who have lived and died will receive their opportunity.

LOL. "Hey, I'll let you live without death ... after you're dead. So, I guess I should just shut up now." -- God

If I give you a gift, and take it back the next day, was that a gift to start with?

Or three days?

 

[Kenny]

Well, I see humans have to clean up the mess left by the Creator of said universe.

Scripturally speaking, it is the Creator trying to clean up the mess humans make. I think, without a doubt, all you have to do is look around and see what messes humans make.

Adam is a dirt puppet. So ... yes?

ummm.... no

 

[shmogie]

Abiogenesis and evolution do not violate thermodynamics.

They do

 

[shmogie]

Kind of like the likelihood that the Earth is flat: 50%. Either it is or it's not.
Or that 5 divided by 4 = 2,122: 50%. Either it is or it's not.
Or that god is an East Pacific Red Octopus: 50%. Either he is or he isn't
Or that I'm Jesus Christ: 50%. Either I am or I'm not.

I suggest a course in Introduction to Probability - The Science of Uncertainty

.

I took a graduate course in probability, Probability is effected a variety of factors, evidence being one, that have to be factored in to calculate the ultimate "odds ". Evidence significantly reduces the probability of a flat earth, that you are Christ, or that non living chemicals can combine to self manufacture a living organism. Only when no evidence is considered does a possible choice of two options become a 50% proposition.

 

[shmogie]

How about vampires? 50/50 as well? It's the same yes-or-no proposition.

How does the evidence factor in to the odds making ?

 

[Skwim]

I took a graduate course in probability,

Then you have my condolences.

.

 

[shmogie]

Then you have my condolences.

.

No probl

Then you have my condolences.

.

No need, you just are a bit behind, so I offer my condolences to you and heartily encourage you to learn more.

 

[Muffled]

That you evidently feel the flood did make a difference.


This only means that the flood was still an utter failure.

.

I believe I have already told you why it did. It just isn't the difference you have assumed should take place.

I believe for that to be true it must not have made a difference in anyone's life and yet we have Abraham coming along as a man of faith. Was he Noah or was he one of the ones that died in the flood? Who can say other than God?

 

[Muffled]

God the Father and the Son of God are two different beings. It's a gift, since this life is like a seed, then we die and get planted in the ground, and get a new body at the resurrection that never dies.

I believe they are not two beings. That would be two Gods and idolatry.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well of course abiogenesis and resultant evolution violate an even stronger law than Occams razor, the law that says order degenerates into chaos, the exact opposite of abiogenesis leading to evolution, leading to masses of complex diverse life forms. Occams razor proclaims the simplest solution is the best, However, that requires a judgement of what is simplest, I guess you and I disagree here

Oh my goodness...

No.

Parroting something that you don't understand is the foundation of misinformation, and it's one of the hallmarks of creationists in a debate about almost anything scientific.

Take this guy, for example, and his smug assurance in himself and his faith, then read the 3 links that I've provided below and tell me if the words he has written there make any sense at all... (Spoiler - They don't)

Why this idea was ever allowed to propagate in creationist circles, I'll never understand. It takes all of 2 minutes to educate yourselves as to why this is a completely ridiculous argument.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia
Entropy - Wikipedia
Entropy and the second law

By your use of the 2nd Law, applying it where it makes no godd@m sense, snowflakes can't exist because they are forming order out of disorder... You guys torpedo your own faith more than any other group in recent memory. It's astounding.

 

[shmogie]

Oh my goodness...

No.

Parroting something that you don't understand is the foundation of misinformation, and it's one of the hallmarks of creationists in a debate about almost anything scientific.

Take this guy, for example, and his smug assurance in himself and his faith, then read the 3 links that I've provided below and tell me if the words he has written there make any sense at all... (Spoiler - They don't)

Why this idea was ever allowed to propagate in creationist circles, I'll never understand. It takes all of 2 minutes to educate yourselves as to why this is a completely ridiculous argument.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia
Entropy - Wikipedia
Entropy and the second law

By your use of the 2nd Law, applying it where it makes no godd@m sense, snowflakes can't exist because they are forming order out of disorder... You guys torpedo your own faith more than any other group in recent memory. It's astounding.

Well let's see Mr. Science The standard evolutionist response is that entropy increases in a closed system, but since the earth is an open system, because it receives sunlight ( energy) from the sun, the second law does not apply. So, in the process of disorder ( no life ) turning into complex order ( a living organism), please explain to me how sunlight can produce detailed information perfectly designed to to govern the machinery of a living organism, in the proper code for the "operating system " of the yet to exist organism to read and utilize. So, in your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics in a closed or open system, does it allow the chaos of chemicals to move to the order of a living organism, and if so, where in the chaos was the information produced, without which the organism to be created could not function ?

 

[Deeje]

God is incompetent? Petty? Unable to punish just the bad students without burning the entire school to the ground? Hypocritical (God saves a righteous man who then goes and gets wasted and then curses some grandkid because a son of his found out he can't hold his liquor)?

It's hard to explain anything about God's wisdom to someone who thinks they know more than the Creator. It has nothing to do with him being "petty". It has everything to do with giving all his intelligent creation free will. To just punish and remove the rebels would only have proven that God is more powerful, not that his sovereignty is deserved and his rules reasonable. Satan never challenged God's power. He knew better.

What did God ask the first humans to do? Just obey one simple command....it wasn't difficult and would not have disadvantaged them in any way. That command would have protected them from evil for all time to come.....but the thing is, when to have knowledge revealed to you, there is no way to "unlearn" it. Once the 'genie' was out of the bottle, there was no way to send it back. Evil was in the world and God would deal with it in the wisest way.....looking always to the future.

If you remember, the first rebel was not human, and his fellow angels were looking on with interest to see what God would do about this situation. Up until this point in their existence, there was no way to test their obedience out of free will. Having lower intelligent creatures who could worship a different supernatural being, still more powerful than themselves, (given the right circumstances,) obviously became a test.

This whole scenario is not just about us.....it is about the righfulness of our Sovereign to set the rules for our existence. Of course, God could have made us just like the animals, with programmed instincts and no free will to make deliberate choices.
But we alone, like the angels, are endowed with God's attributes. We alone feel a need to worship. But the right to life is conditional, and always has been.....it requires our obedience and submission to our Creator.

In allowing both angels and humans to exercise free will even in inappropriate ways, God tests the mettle of all of us. Like the fire of a refiner, by the evil expressed by both humans and angels, allows God to see who we really are as individuals.

Do we hate evil? Will we practice it? Justify it? Embrace it if others around us do?
Or does it repel us? Do we hate it? Does it make us want to help the victims of it?

God allows us to make those choices and judges us on our own responses. I think that is very fair.

Then why do it at all? Obviously sin still existed afterward. If you're going to be lazy about it and wait a few more millennia, just deal with it then?

You are again expecting the Creator to do what YOU think is appropriate. He is way ahead of all of us. His agenda goes on into eternity, because this is a legal battle fought in the courts of heaven and on earth.

A slanderer has brought serious accusations against the Creator, calling into question the reasonableness of his rules and his right to set them. He called God a liar and inferred that he was a lousy parent, keeping something from his human children that they had a right to know. Was he right? God allowed us to make that choice for ourselves.

Witnesses have been furnished for both sides in this long running legal case. They have testified for and against the one accused by satan. Both humans and angels have taken sides.

The jury has handed down their verdict, based on the evidence.....(since the state of mankind and the world testify to the inability of man to rule himself successfully without God).....sentence has been passed on the accuser and now he and all who have sided with him are on death row awaiting the carrying out of their sentence, which is an eternal exit from life, having disqualified themselves from keeping this precious gift.

All humans alive today are either "sheep" or "goats".....and we ourselves made the decision about which camp we are in.

You can stare at what appear to be a few dead pixels, or you can step back and look at the big picture.
Having set precedents for all time to come, the issue of God's rightful Sovereignty can never be challenged again......and then he can get on with whatever else he has planned for his vast universe.

The Creator knows what he is doing.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well let's see Mr. Science The standard evolutionist response is that entropy increases in a closed system, but since the earth is an open system, because it receives sunlight ( energy) from the sun, the second law does not apply.

For clarification, it's not the "standard evolutionists response." It is specifically what the Law that you are referencing states...

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."
-Wiki

So, in the process of disorder ( no life ) turning into complex order ( a living organism), please explain to me how sunlight can produce detailed information perfectly designed to govern the machinery of a living organism, in the proper code for the "operating system " of the yet to exist organism to read and utilize.

I can't answer a completely nonsensical question...

You're only asking about two variables in a multi-part equation, first of all. And even then, assuming you asked me something that made sense, we will eventually get to a point where we face a wall of ignorance regarding abiogenesis and you'll say "AHA! Since you don't know something, therefore God!" And you will have made a theological argument from ignorance, based on nothing but your theistic presuppositions. So let's just stick to science questions and see if we can't answer those.

Ask me something that makes sense I'll be happy to answer it.

So, in your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics in a closed or open system, does it allow the chaos of chemicals to move to the order of a living organism, and if so, where in the chaos was the information produced, without which the organism to be created could not function ?

See above...

If you want to see why this is a silly question, apply it the shape and form of snowflakes - how they are made and how they fall - and see if you get a decent answer from yourself.

"So, in your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics in a closed or open system, does it allow the chaos of chemicals to move to the order of a snowflake, and if so, where in the chaos was the information produced, without which the snowflake to be created could not function?"

 

[shmogie]

For clarification, it's not the "standard evolutionists response." It is specifically what the Law that you are referencing states...

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."
-Wiki


I can't answer a completely nonsensical question...

You're only asking about two variables in a multi-part equation, first of all. And even then, assuming you asked me something that made sense, we will eventually get to a point where we face a wall of ignorance regarding abiogenesis and you'll say "AHA! Since you don't know something, therefore God!" And you will have made a theological argument from ignorance, based on nothing but your theistic presuppositions. So let's just stick to science questions and see if we can't answer those.

Ask me something that makes sense I'll be happy to answer it.



See above...

If you want to see why this is a silly question, apply it the shape and form of snowflakes - how they are made and how they fall - and see if you get a decent answer from yourself.

"So, in your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics in a closed or open system, does it allow the chaos of chemicals to move to the order of a snowflake, and if so, where in the chaos was the information produced, without which the snowflake to be created could not function?"

Well mr. 180 IQ (?) all systems have variables, even the perfect example of the 2nd law, an engine, so using variables as an excuse is not warranted. As to your snowflake answer, what information is required to produce a snowflake, none, it is made as a direct reaction to water changing temperature, a physical property. There are no inherent properties in chemicals, water, rock or whatever you choose to manufacture complex links of information in the right order, with the right timing, in the right number encoded exactly to work in a living organism, yet abiogenesis and the entire resultant chain of evolution requires that very complicated, properly encoded, information to exist, before the first organism. So, please tell me, from what of the alleged early planet do you extrapolate the manufacture of this information, what is the process ? Keeping in mind, of course, that rock runoff, lightning, heat/cold, radiation and alleged chemicals come together and systematically create this perfect information to operate the organism they will produce. While we are at it, lets not lose sight of the properties of the alleged environment allowing a simple bit of DNA to form, let alone complex chains. How do you think entropy in a closed, or alleged open with sunlight system, would influence these extremely complex and unknown ? When I was an arrogant atheist like you, I too thought I had all the answers and needed to straighten the primitives out. So I am not impressed. I don't "parrot" what someone else has said, I look carefully into it, that is why, unlike what I was taught, abiogenesis appears to be an impossible process given any conceivable naturalistic environment for it to have occurred. Provide evidence for it, other than "it had to have happened", or let's end this. Your claims of superiority presented by subtle judgemental comments are noted, rejected and are are tedious and tiresome, as well as ignorant,