... on Flood Again (a Classic, but I like being Brilliant, and Evolutionists Kindly Allow Even Little Me to be So)

jammapcb

+jbooks888 except noah is not practical at all...! start using your brain... because its written does not make it so.... then use reality to test it.... and noah sinks!! lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why would Noah sink if the Ark was not overloaded?

Note that the Arc did not need to break waves, it only needed to function as a drifting lifeboat.

Even the Babylonians got that right, they only assumed that if a little life boat was a round coracle, then a big life boat had to have been a giant round coracle as well, but those are or were not buildable.

So, the Ark was not breaking due to crossing waves while navigating, since there was no human navigation. And God had calculated the Ark so it was, with all kinds of beasts, excepting fish, not overloaded.

Hal Barbour

+Hans-Georg Lundahl In order for the world to be flooded to a height of at least 17,000 feet above current levels (Mt. Ararat is 16,000 ft high) that would require an additional amount of water in the range of half a billion cubic MILES of water! and to accomplish this in 40 days and nights it would have to rain 15 feet per hour for the allotted 960 hours that makes up 40 days and nights. Nothing floating could take that kind of pounding, nothing. No wooden boat could take that, nor steel for that matter. Not to mention the problem of where this massive amount of water went after the flood. This is obviously a mythic story with no validity as a literal event.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Ararat can have risen further up since then.
2) The Deluge Waters were not only by rain.

Therefore something floating might have taken the pounding required. If it was smaller.

Even if it was that big, God could have let it rain around the Arc, but not on it.

3) As to where water went, I have taken the view it went miraculously back into the sky, but I find merit in the view that just as Mountains rose afterwards, also Oceanic Basins sank, so that much water was drained down.

I also find merit in the view it may have disappeared even further down - since secularists have taken such a view about supposed former waters on the surface of Mars.

4) As to your conclusion, it does not stand up for the scrtiny of compared legends. If the "myth" (a word with many meanings) were in this case "fable" (i e made up), we would not find it all over the earth.

jammapcb

+Hans-Georg Lundahl ffs...... lack of genetic bottlenecking across the world today only 0.0002% of species on the boat lol

lack of genetic material for all of them including the ppl and the wife swapping gang bang boat when adultery is frowned upon (dick removal was the punishment in egyptian times) = retarded and incestual offspring =extinct

8 ppl to egyptian empire in 150 years (1.6 million ppl) not including hundreds of tribes which survived fine and genetics prove they were around when this sillly story was made up!

Salt water alteration would kill most of the sea life and fresh water life and also plant life on the land .... in other words its FUCKING RETARDED!!!!! dumb, not practical, insane, exaggerated beyond sense and reality... much like the religious dullards!

also the flood was 22 foot high of which is a local tsunami height on average.... 15 cubits = egyptian measurement (yet they were after noah??? and they didnt exist then right???) but they did of course!!

you live in a fucking cartoon world.. idiota!

so go figure

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a) Bottlenecking exists.
b) I am not sure how long it took between Flood and first beginnings of Egyptian Empire.

I am sure populations can have risen pretty quick with so much land, and also that populations in any given new state can have started out small and risen quickly there.

c) Salt water alteration means the water would have become either lots saltier or lots less salty. I suppose neither, and I suppose certain species now adapted to salt water life were then fresh water.

Thank you for the insults at this distance, I would not have liked to meet you in person.

d) measurements existed before the flood, including obviously cubits.

Whether Egyptian, Babylonian or other post-Flood cubit is best closest to pre-Flood cubit, I do not know.

The Flood was not 15 cubits in all high, but 15 cubist high-ER than the highest mountains there were before the flood.

jammapcb

I missed this while answering his following

+Hans-Georg Lundahl no m8 alot of human tribes across the planet survived fine... and no there are little bottlenecks... of which none are incest based.... lol... we know this because TO Many species are dependent on specialized environments and are apart not made for! .. again such a flood would = global kill for land life... full stop and also the sea due to the impossible amount of rain water which is really evaporated sea/land water ;0).... nature is balanced ... that sad story is sooo not natural nor possible!

jammapcb

+Hans-Georg Lundahl global flood DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!!!!! dumb shit!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl the highest mountains from where this story came from... was a flat land lol.... so again tsunami lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a) how do you know, beyond the text, where the story comes from?

I suppose you refer to Babylonic sources, who as I just mentioned are less accurate about form of the Ark.

But apart from that, if you have two texts from two different traditions on same topic, how do you decide which tradition behind the texts is the older one?

b) If Mesopotamia was indeed flat, it was also so long already then that a tsunami can be counted out, and it was surrounded by regions with mountains which were obviously higher than the flat region itself.

jammapcb

+Hans-Georg Lundahl because the babylonians had the same or very similar story of a boat and flood... considering they are older and also are nearby the hebrew versions.... the tablets are older m8.... at least learn something outside of one book ffs lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was aware that some tablets might be somewhat older than Genesis.

Obviously, they would be much older if you accepted the early date for Babylonian and Sumerian Chronologies and the over late date for Genesis (as if written around lifetime of Ezra rather than by Moses).

Note, "would be" and perhaps there are even such as are centuries older (Genesis around 1510 BC - year of Exodus - and I have heard oldest tablets are dated 1800 - 2000 BC).

Nearby the Hebrew version - yes, but that does not decide which of the versions is older.

In fact, may I remind you of it again, both versions agree that the Survivers' Boat was a lifeboat which did not need to navigate. But a real big one.

Now, Babylonian version makes it a standard version lifeboat - a round coracle - magnified immensely and it would really be impossible to build or hold together over a flood. An Arc would keep together if built like that.

So a general similarity does NOT by itself (independently of for instance realism) decide which of two versions is older and closer to or identical to original.

Neither does the earlier or later writing down between two traditions that rival each other, unless the difference is massive.

Hal Barbour

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You realize of course that there is NO geological evidence to support any of your assuptions, No biological evidence, as to how only two of any "kind" can repopulate the world and quite frankly your assertion of Mountains rising, no rain on the ark, water being just taken into the sky, is on it's face absurd. Any water that was on Mars is either below ground, and any above was evaporated when Mars lost the majority of it's atmosphere, something that did not happen here. You need to read some Joseph Campbell, he was a world recognized authority on Mythology and speaks to the phenomenon of world-wide mythology. These stories are called Archetypes, or collective mythologies oweing to a shared mythic mind. The flood myth is world wide but so are other myths shared between societies and cultures, there are myths that are not in the bible but are shared amongst other societies, does this fact say that these myths are also literal? Archaelogists found the city of Troy, this city was rumored to be a myth, but it was found, does that revelation show validity for Greek mythology?

Is it more likely that a flood story oweing itself to a shared archetype of the subconscious mind is the reason for it's world wide distribution, or that these societies ALL had a flood, at different times, because of different reasons, impacting different lessons and morals by a single author or god? I put my reasoning in the good hands of William of Occam.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"and quite frankly your assertion of Mountains rising, no rain on the ark, water being just taken into the sky, is on it's face absurd."

To people disbelieving Miracles. As for mountains rising being absurd, you might want to disbelieve Geology as well.

"Any water that was on Mars is either below ground, and any above was evaporated when Mars lost the majority of it's atmosphere, something that did not happen here."

Well, below ground is one speculation on where it went.

If you can put up with that one on Mars, why not here?

"You need to read some Joseph Campbell, he was a world recognized authority on Mythology and speaks to the phenomenon of world-wide mythology. These stories are called Archetypes, or collective mythologies oweing to a shared mythic mind."

[Collective as created by same spcific collective culture, not anything about "same collective human mind" or suchlike rot, of course!]

Perhaps Joseph Campbell and you are sharing a collective demythologising mind?

Btw, if you speak of the guy who published Myths and Legends from all over the World, I have already read him.

"The flood myth is world wide but so are other myths shared between societies and cultures, there are myths that are not in the bible but are shared amongst other societies, does this fact say that these myths are also literal?"

As for example?

"Archaelogists found the city of Troy, this city was rumored to be a myth, but it was found, does that revelation show validity for Greek mythology?"

For Heroic legend staged around the time of the War of Troy plus the few generations before and after, say from Perseus to the Epigons, yes.

No two minds about it.

For the Theology in which the heroic facts are interpreted, no. But when it comes to the Flood Myths, there also the Theology is different and only the story is common, i e the story of what could be observed on Earth.

"Is it more likely that a flood story oweing itself to a shared archetype of the subconscious mind is the reason for it's world wide distribution, or that these societies ALL had a flood, at different times, because of different reasons, impacting different lessons and morals by a single author or god? I put my reasoning in the good hands of William of Occam."

You forgot ONE alternative. That they are all remembering the same flood.

Some distorted the story in some ways. Others in other ways. Hebrews didn't distort it.

Babylonians distorted it by saying the god who wanted the flood, Enlil, is other than the god who saved Utnapishtim, Enki. That is a distortion for religious motive of ... frankly Satanism. Saying a rebellious divinity is a better friend of us than the Highest. they also distorted the shape of the Arc according to their knowledge of lifeboats.

Greeks were more into telescoping it with other stories. Three gods who visit Deucalion = three Angels who visit Abraham and Sarah. Saving Deucalion while destroying impious after visit = story of Lot. Deucalion and Pyrrha wondering how to repopulate the world = the pseudoproblem faced, as they believed, by the two daughters of Lot. Flood as a setting = story of Noah. Solution about "bones of your mother" = Adam came from the Earth. That solution involving stones = prophecy of Christ's words to the Pharisees "God can wake up sons of Abraham from these stones".

Norse Mythology places Flood before creation of Earth and Mankind. Giants before flood = Nephelim before Noah's Flood. Flood waters from Blood of Ymer killed by the gods = Babylonian creation story of Marduk killing Tiamat (note that Oden who told this to the Swedes and who presented himself as one of the three gods who did that was probably well aware of Babylonian Mythology). One giant surviving with his family = conscious contradiction of Book of Baruch (Oden lived about the time of Julius Caesar) where it says "not one of them found wisdom, not one" about the "giants of old".

Original story = Hebrew story. Original genealogies = Hebrew genealogies. Original timeframe = Hebrew timeframe.

Note here that Babylonians, Hindoos and Buddhists, Egyptians and Chinese have a vastly larger timescale and a tendency to minimise or deny the Flood. Celts, Norse, Greeks and Romans, and for that matter Shintoists have a vastly shorter timescale.

Greeks for instance place flood just about three generations before Perseus, who was three generations before Hercules, who was one genration before Trojan War. THEY face a problem how the world was repopulated after Ducalion and Pyrrha in time for the Trojan War.

Hebrew timescale = right in the Middle.

"I put my reasoning in the good hands of William of Occam."

I put mine in the good hands of God and I did so very long ago and will continue to do so.

jammapcb

+Hans-Georg Lundahl but god is a sumarian concept... also the egyptians went into it big style... what you say is a god... clearly shows you mans doing!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl yes but mountains take alot of time.... not instant results like you religious cling too! again unsound not realistic lol

Hal Barbour

+Hans-Georg Lundahl If you knew anything about this flood mythology you'd know that these flood myths all happened at different times in the timeline of these societies, and the fact that there are flood myths that predate the Genesis account. If Noah and his family were the only ones left then why do we have stories of floods from other societies that have no recollection of him or his family? The problem of genetic bottleneck, the problem of where the water came from and where it went, the morality of drowning every single living being on the planet except an incessous drunkard and his family, the problem with the timeline of only 4000 years ago, the massive problem with the total lack of geologic record of any flood whatsoever. It's always by you folks that the bible account is the right narrative and the other myths getting it wrong, or distorting it. You go through great effort to get this narrative to fit an existing timeline, one established by science and go through even more gyrations to get a conclusion to fit the evidence, and don't. You prefer a world of magic and fantasy to reality, a world where god makes snakes talk and parts seas, and you put your "faith" in god all the while living in a house cooled and heated by the benefits of science, use a computer and take medication all here because people weren't satisfied with the pat excuses for answers that religions and christianity gives us. It seems you've traded your intellect for faith and logic for dogma, and if that's not bad enough, you're more than willing to disseminate it to others.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes sir, that is painfully obvious..........

[He is obviously totally right on the item I am "more than willing to dissemnate it to others" and that is also my right, and in a Century like this even a civic responsibility.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

jamma ... you said:

"mountains take alot of time.... not instant results like you religious cling too!"

What we do know with very great certainty is that mountain tops have been under water.

That speaks for a flood. Those saying that the Alps took miLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLions of years to form are of course flood deniers and not some set of impartial scientists that both parties look up to.

Hal ...

"If you knew anything about this flood mythology you'd know that these flood myths all happened at different times in the timeline of these societies,"

Have YOU any idea how precisely dates are among the things that change easiest in oral tradition?

In Germanic legend, for one thing we know that Odins stepgrandson Fiolner visited Froda of Denmark. But in the Heimskringla Fiolner is contemporary with Caesar Augustus. In Saxo Grammaticus the Froda who gets a visit from Fiolner is Froda Haddingson, Froda I, and it is instead Froda II, three to five centuries later than Froda I, who is contemporary to Caesar Augustus.

I find the Heimskringla version more believable, since in Saxo's version we have between the first two King Frodas the set of Kings Helgi and Hrothgar (brothers) with Hrothgar's son Hrothulf. Now, for one thing we know from Beowulf that Beowulf visited Hrothgar in Heorot (in/near Hlethre) and for another that Beowulf had an uncle called Hygelac, who is known from the Völkerwanderung.

So, Beowulf, hence also Hrothgar (and Helgi and Hrothulf) are around 500 A.D.

Other example. We know that Theoderic the Great and Ermaneric were Gothic Kings, we know there was a battle at Ravenna. But we also know Ermaneric was dead before Theoderic lived, so whichever of them was at the battle of Ravenna did not meet the other. BUT in German legend Ermanerich and Dietrich meet in the Raben battle.

So, dates and timelines can be very carelessly dismissed from facthood in any tradition unless carefully backed up by some other factor, like in the Hebrew example the Genealogies.

Meaning all these societies remembered one and the same flood, which happened at one and the same time, but most of them (if you do not trust Hebrews you could of course say "all of them") changed the timeline and often telescoped with other stories.

Shortening of a timeline happens by telescoping. Like the "lost" century that make Ermaneric and Theoderic "contemporaries."

Lengthening of a timeline happens by doubling. Like one Froda Haddingson becoming two or even more to make Denmark look Ancient.

"If Noah and his family were the only ones left then why do we have stories of floods from other societies that have no recollection of him or his family?"

Oh, they DO have recollections of him and his family.

Noah lived 900 years. He may have survived some people born after flood. And so Utnapishtim in Babylonian myth becomes immortal.

Noah was a just man, and an old man, like Abraham, and he repeopled earth like the daughters of Lot thought they had to. SO Deucalion and Pyrrha are both Noah and wife, Abraham and Sarah, and Lot and his daughters telescoped into one. The family situation resembles that of Abraham and Sarah most.

"problem of genetic bottleneck, the problem of where the water came from and where it went"

BOTH already answered but you ignored it.

"the morality of drowning every single living being on the planet"

Is solved by:

a) God being their creator, so every single living being ows its life to God anyway,
b) The very great corruption or even ner total corruption just before the Flood.

Not just a corruption of morals, but "of all flesh", and I think transhumanism might not be far off the mark as God's motive.

"except an incessous drunkard and his family,"

You are, not unlike the Greeks, telescoping Noah and Lot.

Moreover, Noah was not involved even involuntarily in incest. And Noah was not a drunkard for getting drunk the first time he tried wine. He had done an experiment and had no idea in advance of the effect.

Are you one of those Occidental Eurabian Muslims who look down on any alcohol consumption?

Two more already dealt with, and you ignored it:

"the problem with the timeline of only 4000 years ago, the massive problem with the total lack of geologic record of any flood whatsoever."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Had to take a break from above answer while answering one or two from the points raised below, while missing others:

jammapcb

+Hans-Georg Lundahl no m8... its cooling down magma which forms solid granite... and is formed that way.... the plates themselves are formed as well in sections of super hot separations.... of which are partially sealed up yet the whole surface is floating on magma... for it to form mountains at that speed would be devastating for life on top.... why you think earthquakes only happen in certain places???? plate shifts colliding together... literally saving up so much energy the weaker side gives way and bang.... there you have it... also the plates can symmetrically hit each other.. or one goes under forcing the other upwards to form a subtle mountain... thing is... IT TAKES ALOT OF TIME !!!!!!! regardless of the BS myths of old!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl it takes millions of years because all the evidences say otherwise.... and ONLY if there is a loss of material and gain at the same time... (which slows the formation right down due to lack of layers)

also the AMOUNT of layers under the mountains itself SAYS IT ALL!!!!!! it took millions of years for that reason!!!

folding rocks are not impossible if under constant pressure... its plain to see And test in a lab... and is the observable fact... not religious wishful thinking with limited data!!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl all these high quality materials take millions of years... coal and oil debunk the religious BS hands down!!!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl you rely to much on human texts... I rely on natures evidence for this one simple reason ... IT CANNOT LIE!!!! .

Religion is about pretending what is real.... I am after solid evidence from nature because it is there and without distortion from muppets like you!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl but the timeline is much older... language is not that old!!!... but hominids existed without text and via only physical or proto audio communication! its a process of building upon the simple to the complex over a vast time.... seriously you people really are lost lol

+Hans-Georg Lundahl the art on caves says it all... and they are FAR older!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I rely on natures evidence for this one simple reason ... IT CANNOT LIE!!!! "

Well, I agree the physical evidence cannot lie, but as it is not verbal, it cannot tell the truth very clearly either.

It is an arduous task to evaluate what it means, whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist.

"you rely to much on human texts"

You rely too little on them. Not just the ones I call Holy and trust as divine, but even humanly speaking those I regard as partially in error.

"all these high quality materials take millions of years... coal and oil debunk the religious BS hands down!!!!"

Oh, sure ... you were alive all the millions of years while they took millions of years to form?

Any other guy, like the science guys, who was?

I thought for my part (but I am relying on human record here!) that this million of years type of science started getting going about two hundred years ago.

And that means that the guys who did it were NOT watching a process taking millions of years.

And your scenario as to how plates form ... no way José!

Magma in molten form getting out of the interior of earth and forming any kind of stone is these days not done on any scale like continental plates, but on the much smaller scale called Volcanos.

The truth is, no one has watched how continental plates (if such there be) and mountains rising high happened to be there.

Unless of course God did. And if He did not tell us any details of the process, He did tell about the timeline available.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Back to Hal now ...

"It's always by you folks that the bible account is the right narrative and the other myths getting it wrong, or distorting it."

According to YOU, it is not all but one myth distortng it a little, but ALL myths getting it TOTALLY wrong, without any very good explanation.

I have explanations for how and why this or that Pagan myth distorted this or that detail.

I have given testable parallels for them from Germanic legend. Which is so much more recent.

You have NO real explanation with ANY real parallel for ALL myths (including ours) agreeing but totally wrongly, on a global Flood.

"You go through great effort to get this narrative to fit an existing timeline, one established by science and go through even more gyrations to get a conclusion to fit the evidence, and don't. "

Some guys go through very many gyrations to fit Hebrew legendary truth to Modern non-legendary reconstructions of very dubious value. I do not.

Neither you nor jabba has dealt with the Geological evidence FOR a global Flood, which I previously linked to.

[Links have disappeared from relevant part of thread, see below.]

VERY brief resumé: if the LONG timeline were right, if Permian was millions of years earlier than Cretaceous and Cretaceous millions of years earlier than Miocene, you would suppose that somewhere on earth there were three layers of clearly different times. Like a Permian layer 30 feet under ground, a Cretaceous layer 20 feet under ground, a Miocene layer 10 feet under ground. WHERE on earth do you find that?

To the best of my knowledge, and I have been researching and I have done the research with NON-Creationist sources which you would call NON-biassed, this is nowhere on earth the case.

"You prefer a world of magic and fantasy to reality,"

You prefer a world of science fiction without magic to the "magic" included in recorded historical realities.

And I think that is the bottom line of our difference.

AronRa, btw,

owns the video and seems to have used that to edit my answers so as to eliminate my links to my own essay form material about lack of superpositions of very dissimilar faunas in clearly distinct layers of FOSSILS. I did post some such. But he edited so well I cannot recall where - unless edits of others were also meant to make me forget what I was answering or unless comments were hidden or deleted.

What I linked to but cannot find:

Creation vs. Evolution : Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2010/06/human-population-after-noah-racial-and.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

I linked to above in response to queries about supposed impossibility ofhuman repopulation after Flood (and parallel problems for other kinds), and for purported "lack of evidence" for the Flood / purported evidence for Geochronology (the two subjects tie together as exactly the same physical pieces of evidence is used as evidence for both scenarios - I am of course arguing the Evolutionist use as being less reasonable).

The video by AronRa

AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU

Against or in answer to which I recommend two articles on CMI:

A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae)
by Todd Charles Wood
http://creation.com/a-baraminology-tutorial-with-examples-from-the-grasses-poaceae

and

Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors
by Russell Grigg
http://creation.com/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors

... on Flood and Mind, part 3

1) ... on Flood and on Mind, part 1, 2) ... on Flood and Mind, part 2 , Interlude: ... on Flood with GreedyCapybara7 (snappy version), 3) ... on Flood and Mind, part 3

Video commented on:

AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU

WarpRulez

+jbooks888
"We never ever see order coming out of chaos without a mind getting involved. NEVER!"

Really? Let's see...

Magma is, basically, molten rock, ie. an amorphous blob of mineral molecules with no order or pattern of any kind. The molecules are all randomly distributed. It's completely chaotic.

Then a volcano erupts and some ejected magma starts to slowly cool off somewhere (thermodynamics in action.) Sometimes something peculiar happens: Crystals form inside this blob of cooling lava.

A crystal is a mineral where the molecules are extremely ordered and form clear patterns (which is the reason why crystal have such peculiar properties.)

So first there was an amorphous blob of chaotically placed molecules, and now there's a highly-ordered patterned structure of those molecules. Order has come out of chaos. So, which mind, exactly, was involved in this process? Magical magma fairy pixies from outer space?

jbooks888

+WarpRulez
OK - We never see intelligence come from non-intelligence.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888
Moving goalposts now, are we?

Define "intelligence".

jbooks888

+WarpRulez
Not moving goal posts - restating my thoughts in a better way. I still stand by order out of chaos only comes about by intelligent application of energy. This is not my invention, but scientists say this. Are you trying to pick a fight, you idiot? Coz now you're fighting with your own people, those you hold in high esteem - the scientific community.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888
Let me guess: "Order does not come out of chaos because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics"? Did I guess right?

Firstly, nowhere do the laws of thermodynamics talk about "intelligence". You (like all creationists) are pulling that from your ass. An "intelligence" in this universe is exactly as much bound by the laws of thermodynamics as anything else, and it cannot break those laws. The famous 2nd law applies to "intelligence" like to everything else.

The 2nd law does not say "entropy never decreases except if affected by an intelligence". Or can you point me to the part that says anything like that?

Secondly, the laws of thermodynamics do not forbid order increasing locally. The only thing that the 2nd law says is that the total entropy of a closed system never decreases. This means that if entropy decreases in one part of the system, it increases by at least that much in another part. There's nothing forbidding this from happening.

My crystallization of rock example is a perfect demonstration of this. Thermodynamics happens, and order increases significantly. What the 2nd law is telling us is that entropy increased by at least as much as a consequence (typically in the form of released heat.) "Intelligence" has absolutely nothing to do with this.

If you refuse to understand this, then you are just being dishonest.

I have a question for you: If you think that "intelligence" can only come from another intelligence, then what do you suggest is the source of our intelligence?

jbooks888

+WarpRulez God is the source of our intelligence.

BTW I never brought up the 2nd Law of dynamics. You guessed wrong, sucker.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 If intelligence can only come up from a higher intelligence, then where did God's intelligence come from?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I expect jbooks888 to agree with my answer:

If intelligence COMES FROM anywhere, it must come from a higher one. Not from matter.

But the intelligence that God is, does not come from elsewhere to Him.

jbooks888

+WarpRulez Stupid question. you might as well ask where God came from or why is the sky blue.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 It's not a stupid question. Your premise was that intelligence cannot appear on its own, that it has to come from somewhere. You then say that our intelligence comes from God. The natural question is to ask where did God get it from. Your premise says that it has to come from somewhere and cannot appear on its own.

jbooks888

+WarpRulez It is indeed a stupid question. A very stupid question. Do you really expect to be able to understand God?

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 Oh, so that's your answer to a logical contradiction? "We just can't understand God." Then you have the guts to say that it was my question that was stupid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

jbooks sorry for interrupting, but you are not answering very well, mind if I bump in?

Warp, the premise "intelligence cannot APPEAR on its own, but if it appears it needs to come from a higher one" is correct.

The premise "EVERY intelligence needs a higher one" is not correct.

Your supposed logical contradiction is none such, since the two premisses are not synonymous.

There are indeed things where we must say we do not understand God, but this is not one of them.

WarpRulez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl That didn't really answer the question of where God's intelligence came from.

(And this isn't even going to the fact that "intelligence can only come from intelligence" is demonstrably untrue. It's a complete ass-pull.)

jbooks888

+WarpRulez God's intelligence didn't come from anywhere. It always was, just as He always was. God invented time and space. And everything we know. How can you ask such questions.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 And your evidence for this is... what, exactly?

Or at the very least could you explain to me how information and intelligence can "always exist"? What exactly is the process or phenomenon that allows it to "always exist"? Can you describe it to me?

"How can you ask such questions"? Why shouldn't I be asking such questions? You are making rather extraordinary claims. Why wouldn't I ask what the basis is for such claims? How do you know that your claims are true? Are you telling me that I should simply accept what you are saying without any inquiry? Tell me one single reason why I shouldn't be asking such questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[@Warp]

"where God's intelligence came from."

Is a question based on a premise I have already said is false, namely that every intelligence comes FROM some other thing.

"the fact that 'intelligence can only come from intelligence' is demonstrably untrue."

If your demonstration, so called, is that our intelligence comes from brain matter or comes from instincts of our not yet human ancestors, I hold that to be an unproven and even impossible myth of materialists as such in the one case of brain matter and evolutionists as such in the case of the supposed ancestors in biology but not intelligence.

If you want to base that on any evidence, or try to, do so.

"Or at the very least could you explain to me how information and intelligence can 'always exist'?"

Because SOME intelligence has to have always existed. Because if ANY particular intelligence came from something other than itself (as we know to be tha case of our own), then that other than itself must also have been an intelligence. But you cannot have an infinite series of intelligence after intelligence depending on the previous one, so you must have a first eternal one, which is called God.

Or since our experience of having an intelligence and what in it proves this to have had in our case a beginning are two distinct aspects.

Understanding a thing does not equate to begin to understand it, we understand it equally well second, third, fourth etc time we go back to an understanding. As long as it was really such.

"What exactly is the process or phenomenon that allows it to 'always exist'?"

Self subsistence. As in what you think that "matter and energy" or simply "energy" has. "Can neither be created nor destroyed" I think one of your own thinkers expressed it as.

We affirm that of mind. But NOT of matter.

Now, if you affirm that mind arose out of matter, I call THAT a very extraordinary claim.

[@jbooks]

"God invented time and space. And everything we know. How can you ask such questions."

He can ask such questions because he is not starting as a Christian. Neither did I even if I got them answered pretty early.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You still have assume the role of a believer - in other words you have to hypothetically say that IF God exists, and start from there. You have to put yourself in the position of a believer. If God is who the Bible says He is, then those questions are ridiculous, childish - naive.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is of course one way of looking at the debate. It assumes the atheist opponent is knowledgeable about the Bible. Can that be hoped for these days?

Even if it can be hoped for that some are, can that be assumed of everyone?

Besides, you were defending "existence of God" on a philosophical plane, i e as discoverable through common human experience even without the Bible (as Romans chapter 1 indeed confirms He is), and so must take the debate without assuming Bible knowledge in the opponent, because even if he has such, he would not be ready to accept its relevance for the philosophical question.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
God is only knowable in as much as He makes Himself known.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

True.

He does so in two ways. Clearest one in Revelation. Most widespread one as to access to starting points in Creation.

When we discuss whether a mind can come from something other than a mind, we are discussing God as revealing Himself by the minds He gave us. Minds that are themselves finite but cannot be tracked to a merely finite mind as origin (one man's mind coming from another man's mind is clearly both on same level and does not adress the basic question) nor to a merely material infinite (since the mindless matter cannot explain the mind). This reasoning is not a Bible text. It is a piece of philosophy and should be conducted so, that is it should not presume familiarity with the Bible in the one one is adressing.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Actually, this reasoning is in the Bible. Jesus said:

Matthew 10
24 "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is a parallel to the argument, but not identical.

Matthew 10:24-25 is about mind CONTENT, the reasoning here is about mind AS A CAPACITY

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, OK. But I don;t think Jesus needed to use reasoning. He knows truth absolutely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

He knows and knew truth absolutely, he also needed to reason. He is true God and true man. Knowing truth absolutely belongs to His being God, reasoning to get it anyway belongs to His being Man. True God, true Man.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Whatever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+jbooks888
That is also a response to good Theology ...

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it is a response to you always having to prove you know more than me.

[He is not the first working class man I have ticked off like that.]

Hal Barbour

Your post is interesting to say the least, I would have to say since you are engaging with admitted atheists what possible worth is it to quote bible myth to them, most have bibles that they have read over and over again. You still have not explained what a "kind" is, say a lion and a tiger? an eagle and a sparrow? a snake and a lizard? The bible explaines this kind thing by saying "each kind" but a tiger and a lion are seperate "kinds" even though they are both cats.

And yes the study of what has happened and how it relates to the species and beings alive then benefits the beings and species alive today. DNA, the same science that cures genetic diseases is the one who conclusively linked our genome to that of the great apes, you can't site the science of DNA as real without it's contributions to the genetic linking to ALL living things on the planet.

I am surprised that you would ask such a question, it is easily answered by googling the link between evolution and medical breakthroughs, simple.

jbooks888

+Hal Barbour
I want to set this straight once and for all, because it drives me up the fecking wall when mindless bullshit like you've just posted goes unchallenged. I'm sick of it!

Because DNA has similarities amongst all kinds of creatures does not mean that they are related or share common ancestry. It merely means that God used the same method of design in all His creatures, because it is a powerful and versatile mechanism. Just because all cars have wheels, does that imply they were all made by the same manufacturer and came from the same factory? DO YOU GET THAT? Hmmm - do you get it?

You cannot draw any conclusions about heritage, going back in time, on the grounds of DNA. It is mere speculation and completely unprovable. It may be true, but then again, Genesis 1:1 may be true, right? They are equally untestable, unprovable, hypotheses.

Besides, how much DNA do scientists actually have of earlier species? Isn't it non-existent? Does DNA survive millions of years?

I quote the Bible passages to anyone and everyone because it is the truth.

I don't care if atheists don't believe it. They are fools, and the only way for them to be elevated from their folly is by hearing the truth, even though most of them won't respond to it.

Just google it, you say? Then I would get a plethora of sites that push the 'scientific' evolutionist agenda. The schools indoctrinate students with it, the media supports it fully and promotes it, and anyone who tries to challenge it with legitimate questions or problems with evolution are immediately and publicly lambasted and lampooned, or fired from their academic positions. This is fact and can be proven, unlike the evolution theory. Just because a theory is useful and explains certain things and may be able to make certain predictions does NOT mean it is what actually happened! There could be alternate explanations. And evolution has many areas that it's predictions were false and many things it simply cannot explain. It is far-fetched. it is unscientific in the sense it cannot be repeated, cannot be observed and it cannot be falsified. Evolution is, by that criteria, just another man-made religion.

Accept this or shut up. I am not interested in any further debate about it. I have argued the issue for years. The facts remain. There is not one iota of evidence that one kind of animal changed into another kind through evolution. And besides all of that, you expose yourself as ignorant when you even use the term evolution without qualifying it. There are several kinds of evolution. Cosmological, chemical, biological and finally, adaptation. Only adaptation, or variation with a kind is demonstrated to be true.

As for the Big Bang and abiogenesis - I'll leave that to another time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+jbooks888
I am not trying to prove I know more than you, I am trying to give a better answer than you. WHEN I think yours fails, which is not always. 

+jbooks888
For instance I liked your answer to Hal thoroughly.