Questions on Genesis From Croker

[In-the-begginning (Gary Croker)]

@nwrickert

I first came across Antony Flew when I was browsing the epistemology section in the library. I was underwhelmed by his book on epistemology.

It was sometime later that I learned that Flew was a leading atheist. This seemed strange (and unbelievable). I already knew of other atheists such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. The information that Flew was a leading atheist came from a Christian, which made it somewhat suspect. I cannot recall hearing any atheist pointing to Flew, though many point to Russell, to Dawkins, to Christopher Hitchens and to several others.

Thank you for your input.

I know as humans we all grab on to data that helps validate our leanings or belief system. Myself included. I always try my best to check what others profess, and with you being a mathematics man.

Is there any validity in the below link?

If true and validated, I would consider it a watermark like on a bank note of Gods signature on inspiration of the said txt.

It would be great to have the opinion of a math guy who has no agenda?

https://sites.google.com/site/mathematicalmonotheism/ordinal-genesis-1-1-john-1-1-triangle

Thank you for your reply.

G

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@In-the-begginning

Is there any validity in the below link?

No. It’s numerological garbage. There are so many possible mathematical coincidences and ways of calculating values that you can get results that are just as seemingly impressive (but actually meaningless) from any text.

[T_aquaticus]

@In-the-begginning

I have considered for life to be possible, the different discovered laws had to be aligned with precision out of an infinite range of possibilities and interact in a coordinated way with each other for the universe, earth, and everything within, for life in it to exist.

I have a huge bag full of small tiles. I pull one of the tiles out and it has the number 9544682 on it. With just this information, what is the probability I would draw a tile with that number on it?

To make that a fully rhetorical question, I will tell you that you can’t calculate the probability. First, you don’t know how many tiles are in the bag, even if you could estimate it. More importantly, you don’t know what the numbers on the other tiles are. For all you know, they could all have the same number.

The same applies for fine tuning. We simply don’t know if there is an infinite range of possibilities for the starting conditions of our universe. We have an n of 1 and no idea of how universes form. We simply can’t calculate any probabilities of getting a universe like ours.

@In-the-begginning

I perceive that no matter who we are, we all have a in built desire to worship. That could be a pop star, actress, football team, individual, politician, religion, a ideology, money, ourselves, lover, the list is endless. That is a universal thread amongst ourselves that I see, whatever we personally worship without even realising it, we have produced in our own mind something to worship. Is that necessary for existence, other animals do not exhibit this behaviour as far as I perceive.
That is a in built law of human nature wether you are good bad or ugly.

It could just as well be a built in human bias that leads us to false conclusions.

@In-the-begginning

No, I don’t see ancestral, I see that we can not produce with them, so we are not of the same kind in my opinion.

What evidence would you need in order to conclude that chimps and humans are the same kind?

@In-the-begginning

Has anyone been able to make a cell from nothing?

No one has observed a supernatural deity creating a cell.

[Michael_Okoko]

@In-the-begginning

I have considered for life to be possible, the different discovered laws had to be aligned with precision out of an infinite range of possibilities and interact in a coordinated way with each other for the universe, earth, and everything within, for life in it to exist.

So?

@In-the-begginning

Do you accept all these laws came about by chance for us to exist?

I don’t know, neither do physicists or you. If you think its God, please provide the necessary empirical data to support your claim.

@In-the-begginning

has a consciousness that we as humans are exceptional creatures compared to any other life forms behaviour.

Humans (well, many of them) are exceptional within specific contexts like intellectual capacity, but in other contexts other organisms are exceptional as well.

@In-the-begginning

The law giver created us this way,

Which lawgiver and how do you know?

@In-the-begginning

I accept that any animal that can mate with another and produce offspring is Gods definition of Kind

Theoretically, we could mate with chimps and produce offspring (although they might be infertile).

Your definition is also quite narrow. Snakes can’t produce offspring with Agama lizards, so does it mean they don’t belong to the same reptile kind? Finches cannot produce offspring with eagles, so does it mean they don’t belong to the same bird kind?

Finally, your definition has no basis in reality. Two different, extant species don’t have to produce viable offspring via cross-mating before they can be said to have shared a common ancestor in the past. As two organisms separate after splitting from an ancestor, they accumulate differences over time which would most likely prevent them from cross-mating and/or making viable, fertile offspring.

@In-the-begginning

man being set apart as the domineering one that influences the path of our journey as a collective. Good and bad influences.

Look around you, microorganisms are the domineering life forms on earth. We can’t even live without them. For example, Vitamin K is synthesized by bacteria living in your gut, without which you would have bled uncontrollably to death long ago. Microorganisms (including) viruses are among the most successful life forms on earth.

@In-the-begginning

I am not a scientist, and I don’t claim to have the insight into the workings of cells, so I am learning from all of you in this regard. Kindly explain your point in layman’s terms?

You claimed that evolutionary biologists (which include many devout Christians) and creationists see the same data, but interpret it differently based on their differing “worldviews”. So I gave you a little exercise to test that claim.

Put simply, before administering both drugs, everyone in the clinical trial had the same high blood pressure (100mmHg). The trial participants were split into two groups: one group received drug A and the other received drug B. On average, drug A lowered blood pressure in the group it was given from 100mmHg to 70mmHg, while drug B reduced blood pressure from 100mmHg to 40mmHg in the group it was given. Which drug performed better?

@In-the-begginning

Still does not reflect the conditions that existed to form the first cell.
Has anyone been able to make a cell from nothing?

This has nothing to do with the exercise on data interpretation I gave you.

@In-the-begginning

I think all commentators to the discussion are relevant

We are not discussing atheism so your remarks on Anthony Flew are irrelevant. If you want a formal discussion on his work then create a new thread for that.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@T_aquaticus

I have a huge bag full of small tiles. I pull one of the tiles out and it has the number 9544682 on it. With just this information, what is the probability I would draw a tile with that number on it?

~0.000000052385

Such problems were tackled regularly during WWII. See The German Tank problem.

Sure, this requires making some assumptions. But so does any probability calculation, and the ones made here aren’t that different from the ones made in calculating the probability of rolling a six with a dice.

The same applies for fine tuning. We simply don’t know if there is an infinite range of possibilities for the starting conditions of our universe. We have an n of 1 and no idea of how universes form. We simply can’t calculate any probabilities of getting a universe like ours.

But we can calculate the probability that a universe like ours was got: 1.0.

[T_aquaticus]

@Roy

~0.000000052385

That would be false. The chances of getting a tile with that number on it are 1 in 1 because all the tiles have the same number.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@In-the-begginning

The scientific hydroplate theory explains this global flood for me.

But is entirely unsatisfactory to geologists and physicists. That’s is another questions though, and there are many other threads here discussing it.

@Roy

But we can calculate the probability that a universe like ours was got: 1.0.

To All, may I suggest that probability and other side arguments are not helpful to this discussion, and we have all been down those roads before. Let Gary have his say, and note objections without chasing down all the familiar rabbit-holes.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@In-the-begginning

Is there any validity in the below link?

To me, it looks like nonsense (or like numerology, which is a form of nonsense). I’m pretty sure that someone could do the same sort of thing with “Alice In Wonderland” as was done with the Bible.

[In-the-begginning (Gary Croker)]

@John_Harshman

It might be that somatic mutations are responsible for aging. But we’d still die from all sorts of other things. No, we didn’t lose perfection. Perfect replication is not a practical possibility. No mechanism can entirely prevent mutations.

Somatic mutations that can be passed on to progeny. So possibly also inevitable death genes passed on in our genetics? That’s how the scriptures explain we inherited death from the first Man. It’s always bugged me why we love, and then that love is tormented by death.

@John_Harshman

Of course it does.

I was just curious how from a baby we grow in strength, coordination and height physically. Then at some point we start deteriorating. Is their a identifiable difference in the mutations from when we are growing to when we are deteriorating?

@T_aquaticus

To make that a fully rhetorical question, I will tell you that you can’t calculate the probability. First, you don’t know how many tiles are in the bag, even if you could estimate it. More importantly, you don’t know what the numbers on the other tiles are. For all you know, they could all have the same number.

Yes I agree, we can’t calculate the probability, but can we reason that a intelligence does know, even though we never met him yet. That someone is the one who loaded up the bag of tiles and numbered them. Even knew how they would all fit together in a unified way?

@Dan_Eastwood

To All, may I suggest that probability and other side arguments are not helpful to this discussion, and we have all been down those roads before. Let Gary have his say, and note objections without chasing down all the familiar rabbit-holes.

Thanks Roy!

Even though I can’t wrap my head around something coming from nothing. Especially the living cell which is such a complex organism itself, a self producing factory with all it’s different components, I really don’t have a hatred for people who do not believe in God because I have not lived their lives and believe that is how knowledge is increased is by looking at both sides and challenge what I think I know with the ones who profess a different take on things. I even challenge my perceived understanding of scripture with other believers that profess doctrines that have to be imagined into scripture.
Example: There is not one demon possessed person in the 4000 years before the Hellenistic era of the New Testament. So I believe this is a cultural belief based on the human psyche of the time. If there is a God ( intelligence ) he does not change, the only thing that changes doctrines is the imaginations of mans perception.
As a human we are all suggestible and or programmed to believe in narratives unless you have the ability to step outside of it all and see what really is going on. You may get called crazy for not agreeing with the majority, yet I am being true to myself based on the understanding that I have at that present time. I have believed things that I don’t believe anymore.
I not here to convince anyone of anything, I’m here to convince myself. The something from nothing with all its complexities takes very intelligent men and women to fathom it. There are intelligent people ( not myself ) on here that believe and intelligent people that don’t.
So I get the best of both sides of the narratives of understanding.

On this site, I can hear and consider both sides. The one thing I do know is that if the Bible is right about Gods character, I perceive that the empirical evidence you all desire will be evident when he steps in. That’s the claim of the book and all your knowledge will be utilised to make the world a better place. The earth itself is fine, it’s just us as a collective all condemning each other with our take on what’s best.
There can only be one absolute truth. We measure intelligence based on a measuring stick of each other’s ideas and reasonings. IF it turns out there is a God and you get to work with him, regardless of where your mindset is now. I’m sure you will be happy and not upset.

@nwrickert

To me, it looks like nonsense (or like numerology, which is a form of nonsense). I’m pretty sure that someone could do the same sort of thing with “Alice In Wonderland” as was done with the Bible.

Thanks for looking at this, I thought it may be too good to be true.
As you all know the engineering in the cell or how it functions is amazing in itself, I was looking for a signature of the same engineering in scripture.

Really appreciate you looking at it for me.

@Michael_Okoko

You claimed that evolutionary biologists (which include many devout Christians) and creationists see the same data, but interpret it differently based on their differing “worldviews”. So I gave you a little exercise to test that claim.

Sorry my friend maybe I was unclear, what I actually meant was with opposing views, that the interpretation of data from your perspective leads you your belief.

I have different data ( biblical ) that I am looking at for the same answers to our existence.

Meaning that it all comes down to interpretation of data. There is me that believes that the universe can not manifest itself from nothing and the more I look into laws of nature and life. The more I am amazed. The data is in this old book telling me I won’t search it out, it is beyond me.

Then there are those with no belief in a God that have the same desire to work it out and believe that it is not beyond them. We share the amazement but have different data starting points in our belief systems. Therefore different interpretations on the beginning of the universe.

[In-the-begginning (Gary Croker)]

@Michael_Okoko

We are not discussing atheism so your remarks on Anthony Flew are irrelevant. If you want a formal discussion on his work then create a new thread for that.

Sorry, I’m not here to offend. One of the first gentleman that replied to me, informed me, he was a atheist. The question about Antony Flew was sent to him for a insight of what a atheist’s perspective is of a atheist that changed his mind.

I already knew the opposite perspective in the creationist world view. Just wanted to know that, if Antony Flew found his evidence for a change of mind. Why it didn’t satisfy current atheist’s.

The gentleman kindly gave me a answer and even educated me on how to use this site when replying.

G

[T_aquaticus]

@In-the-begginning

Somatic mutations that can be passed on to progeny. So possibly also inevitable death genes passed on in our genetics?

Somatic mutations are not passed on. Only germline mutations (those in egg and sperm) [can be] passed on. [edit at the suggestion of @Michael_Okoko ]

@In-the-begginning

Yes I agree, we can’t calculate the probability, but can we reason that a intelligence does know, even though we never met him yet.

What you are describing is inventing fantasy, not reason.

@In-the-begginning

Even though I can’t wrap my head around something coming from nothing. Especially the living cell which is such a complex organism itself, a self producing factory with all it’s different components,

Actually, isn’t that what you believe in?

Abiogenesis, if it occurred, would have started with existing matter. No one is saying that the first cell came from nothing.

[John_Harshman]

@In-the-begginning

Somatic mutations that can be passed on to progeny.

No, somatic mutations aren’t passed on to progeny. You are confused.

@In-the-begginning

That’s how the scriptures explain we inherited death from the first Man.

There was no “first Man”. Species do not arise from single individuals, as a rule. Death is an inevitable feature of life, all life. Get over it.

@In-the-begginning

Is their a identifiable difference in the mutations from when we are growing to when we are deteriorating?

No.

[CrisprCAS9]

@In-the-begginning

The scientific hydroplate theory explains this global flood for me.

The ‘scientific hydroplate theory’ is neither scientific nor a theory. Also, it would superheat the atmosphere, so not a plausible explanation.

[Michael_Okoko]

@In-the-begginning

Somatic mutations that can be passed on to progeny.

No they can’t.

@In-the-begginning

Sorry my friend maybe I was unclear, what I actually meant was with opposing views, that the interpretation of data from your perspective leads you your belief.

This is wrongheaded. Scientists do science by formulating and testing hypotheses, not interpreting data from any perspective. Evolutionary biology is a scientific discipline, utilizing the same scientific approach. You let the data lead you to a conclusion, not the other way around.

@In-the-begginning

I have different data ( biblical ) that I am looking at for the same answers to our existence.

The Bible isn’t data. It is chock full of claims like those of Noah’s flood or a single genetic ancestral pair of all modern humans when taken literally. Unfortunately, decades of scientific research has failed to find supporting evidence for the claims of young earth creationism (which I suspect you cling to?).

@In-the-begginning

There is me that believes that the universe can not manifest itself from nothing

Define nothing?

@In-the-begginning

The data is in this old book telling me I won’t search it out, it is beyond me.

The stories of Genesis and the flood are historical claims not data.

@In-the-begginning

Sorry, I’m not here to offend. One of the first gentleman that replied to me, informed me, he was a atheist. The question about Antony Flew was sent to him for a insight of what a atheist’s perspective is of a atheist that changed his mind.

This thread is not meant for discussing atheism or Anthony Flew. If you want to discuss either, create a new thread or ask moderators to do that for you.

[Michael_Okoko]

@T_aquaticus

Only germline mutations (those in egg and sperm) are passed on.

I think you meant to say “only germline mutations can be passed down”, since not all germline mutations are passed down. Forgive my quibbling.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@T_aquaticus

@Roy

~0.000000052385

That would be false. The chances of getting a tile with that number on it are 1 in 1 because all the tiles have the same number.

I’m not sure you’ve had enough time to check all of them…

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

Hi Gary,
I am intrigued by your thought process. If you believe this:

@In-the-begginning

I don’t personally belong to any church denomination or subscribe to any religion. I know scripture has been added to and taken away from in my deep dives into original txts and try to find evidence of true inspiration from a source outside of ourselves within the original txts. I personally do not believe the fallen angel doctrine.

then why do you ask the question below?

@In-the-begginning

Basically, What I am asking is that does not scripture point to a young creation of nearly 6000 years? This is if you accept Isaiah’s words?

On what basis do you trust the interpretation that Genesis 1 requires that the earth is only 6000 years old?

[In-the-begginning (Gary Croker)]

I believe scripture is inspired yet also believe that man has added and taken away from it literally as well as in doctrinal interpretation.

I would be more than happy to be corrected with any insight you have?

What is your belief as regards a young earth?

G

[In-the-begginning (Gary Croker)]

@T_aquaticus

Actually, isn’t that what you believe in?

No I am saying I can’t believe that life just appeared without reason or intelligence behind it.
If you do not believe in a creator, it is you who believes something came from nothing. That’s what I can’t wrap my head around.
My evidence is we are here and the smartest people in the scientific world, can not explain it.

@T_aquaticus

Abiogenesis, if it occurred, would have started with existing matter. No one is saying that the first cell came from nothing.

Where does the existing matter have come from?
I have only heard that experiments are conducted and no validated proof of a living cell has been created. All the ingredients for these experiments are conducted with the ingredients we already have. Doesn’t explain where everything ( matter ) came from.

@T_aquaticus

@In-the-begginning

Yes I agree, we can’t calculate the probability, but can we reason that a intelligence does know, even though we never met him yet.

What you are describing is inventing fantasy, not reason.

You took the context out of that statement.
There are other words after that sentence.
We are here and exist. What is your explanation for all the science and engineering you have discovered that actually was in that bag of tiles? All the laws of exist, so how unless a intelligence set the boundaries of them all just so we could exist within them and contemplate our existence?

@T_aquaticus

Somatic mutations are not passed on. Only germline mutations (those in egg and sperm) are passed on.

Thanks for the education, so is that is how we get our uniqueness from each other?

@John_Harshman

There was no “first Man”. Species do not arise from single individuals, as a rule. Death is an inevitable feature of life, all life. Get over it.

There was a man and a woman. Sperm and a egg.
So, please I ask this in sincerity, can anyone not see that evolutionists say snakes evolved and lost their legs.

The Bible txt from thousands of years ago, say they were removed and the animal will eat dust.
None of us were around and I’m sure there weren’t no modern studies on the anatomy of a snake even 1000 years ago. For me God beat us as a collective to the fact that snakes did have legs before and explains why the animal now doesn’t thousands of years ago.

@Michelle

On what basis do you trust the interpretation that Genesis 1 requires that the earth is only 6000 years old?

The prophecy of a thousand years for each day of creation in chapter 1, the first sentence.

Isaiah says God told the end at the beginning.

@In-the-begginning

If you disagree, I have no problem being corrected and have no pride to offend.

@Michael_Okoko

@In-the-begginning

Do you accept all these laws came about by chance for us to exist?

I don’t know, neither do physicists or you. If you think its God, please provide the necessary empirical data to support your claim.

All I have to go on is Gods word, which you don’t accept? You do not accept it, yet thousands of years ago his word knew about people who would be wise in their own eyes and not accept there was a God.

Isaiah 29: 14-16
Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
And the wisdom of their wise men will perish,
And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.”
Woe to those who deeply hide their plans from the Lord,
And whose deeds are done in a dark place,
And they say, “Who sees us?” or “Who knows us?”
You turn things around!
Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay,
That what is made would say to its maker, “He did not make me”

You claim God did not make us. We are the clay! This was written thousands of years ago before evolution was even a theory.

@Michael_Okoko

@In-the-begginning

Do you accept all these laws came about by chance for us to exist?

I don’t know, neither do physicists or you. If you think its God, please provide the necessary empirical data to support your claim

We are here and exist and are conscious of our uniqueness. What’s your explanation? Or evidence?

@Michael_Okoko

@In-the-begginning

has a consciousness that we as humans are exceptional creatures compared to any other life forms behaviour.

Humans (well, many of them) are exceptional within specific contexts like intellectual capacity, but in other contexts other organisms are exceptional as well.

Do other organisms just function or are the able to think and reason as we do as humuns?

@Michael_Okoko

@In-the-begginning

The law giver created us this way,

Which lawgiver and how do you know?

The laws you all work with are constant, precise which all points to design. The house across the road to you had a a planner and builder, do you know him? Did you see him build it? Probably not! Does he exist? Of course he does.
We all live in a house that has been furnished for human habitation, have you met the builder? No, Does he exist? Of course he does.

@Michael_Okoko

Theoretically, we could mate with chimps and produce offspring (although they might be infertile).

Your definition is also quite narrow. Snakes can’t produce offspring with Agama lizards, so does it mean they don’t belong to the same reptile kind? Finches cannot produce offspring with eagles, so does it mean they don’t belong to the same bird kind?

Finally, your definition has no basis in reality. Two different, extant species don’t have to produce viable offspring via cross-mating before they can be said to have shared a common ancestor in the past. As two organisms separate after splitting from an ancestor, they accumulate differences over time which would most likely prevent them from cross-mating and/or making viable, fertile offspring.

Theoretically? So if life is evolving into different life forms and we have been here for aeons of time, theoretically we should all be seeing real life forms evolving and happening all the time in front of our eyes because every day is aeons away from the beginning of life. What animals are evolving into another type right now?

@nwrickert

@In-the-begginning

Is there any validity in the below link?

To me, it looks like nonsense (or like numerology, which is a form of nonsense). I’m pretty sure that someone could do the same sort of thing with “Alice In Wonderland” as was done with the Bible.

Thanks for looking at it. I will try and find another math guy to double confirm it’s nonsense.

@CrisprCAS9

The ‘scientific hydroplate theory’ is neither scientific nor a theory. Also, it would superheat the atmosphere, so not a plausible explanation.

@CrisprCAS9

The ‘scientific hydroplate theory’ is neither scientific nor a theory. Also, it would superheat the atmosphere, so not a plausible explanation.

500 years ago a man said that he was going to build a ship and fly it in the sky. Everyone laughed at him and said it was not possible, it was not a idea to be entertained.

The hydroplate theory explains so much but is not compatible with your theory. So we will have to agree to disagree.

@Michael_Okoko

@In-the-begginning

I have different data ( biblical ) that I am looking at for the same answers to our existence.

The Bible isn’t data. It is chock full of claims like those of Noah’s flood or a single genetic ancestral pair of all modern humans when taken literally. Unfortunately, decades of scientific research has failed to find supporting evidence for the claims of young earth creationism (which I suspect you cling to?).

Have you ever considered the Bible was written a long time before we discovered a lot of the science that is actually written in its pages? Them claims were scientifically true!

[John_Harshman]

@In-the-begginning

There was a man and a woman. Sperm and a egg.

Species do not arise from single couples, as a rule.

@In-the-begginning

For me God beat us as a collective to the fact that snakes did have legs before and explains why the animal now doesn’t thousands of years ago.

Most of the creationists here think that the snake in question wasn’t a snake at all, just Satan in disguise. Not you? But if snakes are intended, it’s an obvious deduction from the fact that snakes look a lot like lizards without legs. Of course they must have lost them. But it’s millions of years ago, not thousands.

@In-the-begginning

Have you ever considered the Bible was written a long time before we discovered a lot of the science that is actually written in its pages?

There is no science in the bible. You have been misinformed. And of course similar claims have been made for the Quran and various Hindu scriptures. That should make you more circumspect.