Evolution is Precursor to Creation

[dtorge39]

Certainly if intelligence is limited to the space between our ears, it does not have a chance at achieving godhood. Thank goodness this is not the case in actuality. Intelligence is not limited to the architectures of our brains. The principles of brain functioning can (and will) be extended through artificial means. The current designs for AI brains have no reason to be limited to the size of human heads. Computing power and neural networking have unlimited extensibility whether through hard-wired connections or remote connectivity.

Fair enough, but you have stilled ignored the fact that it is mathematically impossible to know everything, given that it has been shown that there are things which cannot be proven.

Godel's theorum just states that you can not show the consistency of axioms within a given system. This implies that not all mathematical questions are computable.

I would answer that not all mathematical questions necessarily represent depictions of reality which are relevant to us (or God). For example, in a multi-verse, would a God be concerned about regions that cannot support any form of life? I doubt it. This may be knowledge, but it is outside of the system that God would care about, and useless knowledge from God's perspective. God knows everything He needs to know in his role as God.

 

[Deleted member 619]

And you know this how?

Oh, that's right. You pulled it directly from an orifice more readily associated with a more solid form of waste. :roll:

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

So scientology is right? And Xenu is the one true God?

No, and an even bigger 'No!'

Well but sure you making it sound like it.

But we are not talking about OUR future. We are talking about the sum total of possibilities of ALL intelligent life! You are basically asserting that intelligence, as a rule, never travels beyond its own solar system, and that they ALWAYS kill each other. This is wrong!!!!

When energy supplies within a native solar system dwindle, the intelligent lifeform will be confronted with an ultimatum: travel, or go the way of the dodo bird!!!! You don't give intelligence much credit.

That is a big strawman composed with goal post shifting.
Neither was I talking particularly about our future, our future was just an example of the consequences I have pointed out to you.
And certainly the sum of all possibilities is not the way to go, because all possibilities are certainly not possible, and what do I mean with this? (since I know you will totally not get it). Just because it is possible, it doesn't mean that it will happen, in fact allots of things in this aspects are possible but only very few of those possibilities become reality.
My point was never to show that intelligence will always be unable to provide interstellar colonies, my point was that being able to live beyond your planet of origin is not a direct consequence of intelligence. It can, but it doesn't have to.
I remember perfectly well that I said that "the argument that you should be doing for this is not one about evolution but rather due to the size of the universe there is bound to some species somewhere to do this", or something of the sort:

But the main reason we are not talking about evolution here is because inter-stellar travel is not achievable by adaptation in the life forms, this is achieved by the cultural development (ideas) of an intelligent species, and there is nothing in evolution that implicates that such cultures must even exist. I shouldn't been doing this but *psst* *wispers*What you want is to say is that in a universe with several intelligent life forms, it is probable that at least one of them will be able to achieve interstellar travel.*/wispers*I'm just saying.

There are many cases of animals who dwell on currently isolated land masses, but these land masses were not always isolated.

Correctamundo!! But they were sure isolated since more than 10,000 years ago, so you do the math.

And, no, species would not be split evenly throughout the globe. It is the existence of local ecosystems, and the dependence of the habitat on the specific features and resources of that ecosystem, which prevents an even spread across the globe. The world is diverse, with many types of ecosystems.

Why are there no rhinoceros in Brazil? Kangaroos in Africa? Lions in Australia?
Those regions could have had similar ecosystems without a problem. But then again what am I doing? If the flood ever happened, there would be no land dwelling animals of any kind (unless they found a way to get the required nutrients out of the sand).
And again, if such an event would happen, that also mean that all civilizations from that time would have been gone also, which we have already established that many civilization have thrived continuously trough every time period way before the bible establishes the world to have been created.
There is absolutely no way that you proposition is not incompatible with the bible, and no twists or turns you make will be able to go around this.

Godel's theorum just states that you can not show the consistency of axioms within a given system. This implies that not all mathematical questions are computable.

Then you haven't read enough, keep diging.

I would answer that not all mathematical questions necessarily represent depictions of reality which are relevant to us (or God). For example, in a multi-verse, would a God be concerned about regions that cannot support any form of life? I doubt it. This may be knowledge, but it is outside of the system that God would care about, and useless knowledge from God's perspective. God knows everything He needs to know in his role as God.

mathematical questions do not depict anything, they are questions and not anwers. And about not concerning about the regions that do not support life, I'm sorry to say that the vast majority of th universe is uncapable to support life (and the regions of space that can't support life concerns me more precisely because they can't support life, i.e. it would kill you).
Now what upsets me about this paragraph is that in one statment you say that God doesn't give a damn about certain kinds of kowledge, but on the very next satment you claim that he knows everything (even tough nothing has to, i.e. non sequiteur). Oddly enough your depiction of God start to sound more like the traditional supernatural being kind of God instead of Super-advanced alien species kind of God (the one that you were proposing).

 

[dtorge39]

. A planetary replication including animal species (living and dead) would not leave much evidence, if any at all.

so does that mean that fossils don't fit into the model you have built? or did this creator of yours put them there just to fool the weak minded into not believing in it?

Fossils would fit in the model. Planetary replication implies that a snapshot of the atomic makeup of the solar system was taken at some point in its original history. This snapshot would result in a multi-dimensional picture of the layout of sub-atomic material as of some point in time (most likely a time when intelligent beings began to roam the Earth). This layout would have been complete, including all of Earth's organic and inorganic materials. Even the light waves surrounding the Earth would have been arbitrarily captured in this process.

Thus, God did not insert the fossils just to fool the weak-minded. The fossils were an incidental part of the original makeup of the original Earth.

you also talk about an Adam and Eve existing somewhere in the range of 10,000 years ago, but from a biological perspective that would be preposterous. The amount of diversity in the Human Genome doesn't allow for that. You can compare it to Cheetahs that did face near extinction approximately 10,000 years ago. Some researchers theorize that there may have been less then 50 individuals left alive that all current ones are descended from and as a result they are horribly inbred and nearly identical genetically, to the point that they can take a skin graft from any cheetah and use it on any other cheetah in the world without having to use anti-rejection medication

The cheetah info was interesting. I know that the DNA analysis currently shows the human extinction crisis at more like 100K years ago, but these are also subject to scientific error/correction and limitations of knowledge. We are still learning about DNA evolution.

I don't believe anyone has accounted for the environmental variables of that crisis, at least not to my knowledge.

 

[dtorge39]

No, twins are not the same person (even if their DNA were identical). They will not share the same stream of consciousness, nor will they have the same set of memories. These latter 2 items can (and will) be replicated through technology. The push for AI is hot on the trail of both. This should cause one to pause and consider that it has all been achieved before (under cyclical universe theory). What are the implications?

Excuse me but you have defined identity by the specific sequence of DNA, twins have the same string of DNA therefore by your definition they must have the same identity. If you hold that you never meant to make the definition in such a way, then your definition is WRONG! And it is your responsibility to fix it and not my responsibility to lobotomize myself so that it will make any sort of sense.

I think you misunderstood my prior post. I have never asserted that DNA provides a complete identity. It is only a piece of the identity. It provides the info needed to rebuild your physical body. Your mental processes (what some would call 'spiritual' processes) are the other pieces required to complete the identity. My point is that there is no violation of physical law required to create such an identity. And clearly the intelligent being will have the motivation to create such an identity.

Pure energy is contained within the strings which make up the basic fabric of matter. More than likely a technology would have to break existing matter down to that level to gain access to pure energy. Pure energy is also located within the "empty" vacuums of space. Pure energy goes through a process symmetry breaking as it cools to form the various particles in the standard model. Thus, in theory, a controlled cooling process could manipulate the forms of matter which are assumed by pure energy.

Hold on a second, I know the meaning of all those words but your sentence makes absolutely no fucking sense. This is like saying "my doghouse farted a 'Q' out of her sandwich.
Here is a list of words that you are going to look up their meaning:
1. Energy
2. String
3. Matter
4. Vacuum
5. Symmetry
6. Cooling
7. Assumed
After you have posted their definitions and demonstrated that you have a clear understanding of what those words mean, comeback reread your post and learn something (at least to shut the fuck up when you don't know what you are talking about).

I know a lot more about science than you give me credit. I've read myraids of books on quantum physics, partical physics, cosmology, biology, neurology, AI, and chemistry, I may not have a PhD, but reading gives a broad knowledge.

Do you deny that energy is found in the vibrations of strings (provided string theory is accurate)?
Do you deny that energy and matter are equivalent, and can be transformed from one to the other?
Do you deny that vacuums of space have measured energy levels greater than zero?
Do you deny that all particles lose their properties when subjected to sufficient levels of heat?
Do you deny that symmetry breaking is the process whereby differentiated physical particles emerge under a cooling enviroment (such as immediately following the big bang)?

 

[dtorge39]

Did you even bother to read my post? Love is love is love. All love is biochemical in nature.

Yes, I did read your post. Love is not all biochemical, as love is more than just emotion.
What is the biochemical reaction in play when a peace corps recruit decides to dedicate months of their life to fighting AIDS?
What is the biochemical reaction in play when a child sends their allowance money in to help rebuild Haiti?
What is the biochemical reaction in play when a teacher stays with a student beyond the alloted time to help them understand a concept?

These actions of love are performed because one knows that it is the 'right' thing to do. They know it through logic, not chemistry. And there is no upper limit on the actions that can be motivated by this kind of love. It is the same motivation that led God to create your spirit, and your Earth.

 

[dtorge39]

Yes, it is indeed true of everyone. Everyone must accept God or face the consquences. If you don't accept Him, then you can not be included in the set of people whom God can possibly trust.

Is God in this mind-fuck of a creation story omniscient?

Yes, but I would qualify the definition as 'knowing all things which are knowable, or, perceiving all things which are perceivable."

God exists inside of physical law, not outside of it.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I know a lot more about science than you give me credit. I've read myraids of books on quantum physics, partical physics, cosmology, biology, neurology, AI, and chemistry, I may not have a PhD, but reading gives a broad knowledge.

I call shananigans on that.
But if I am wrong then you will not have any poblem posting the definition of each one of them, or will you?

 

[australopithecus]

Yes, but I would qualify the definition as 'knowing all things which are knowable, or, perceiving all things which are perceivable."

What constitutes knowable or perceivable? Does ths definition of omniscient allow for knowledge of future events?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Did you even bother to read my post? Love is love is love. All love is biochemical in nature.

Yes, I did read your post. Love is not all biochemical, as love is more than just emotion.
What is the biochemical reaction in play when a peace corps recruit decides to dedicate months of their life to fighting AIDS?
What is the biochemical reaction in play when a child sends their allowance money in to help rebuild Haiti?
What is the biochemical reaction in play when a teacher stays with a student beyond the alloted time to help them understand a concept?

These actions of love are performed because one knows that it is the 'right' thing to do. They know it through logic, not chemistry. And there is no upper limit on the actions that can be motivated by this kind of love. It is the same motivation that led God to create your spirit, and your Earth.

Absolute guff of the most ignorant order. How do you 'know' something? That's fucking right, genius, electrochemical reactions in the fucking brain. All your emotions, all your thoughts, everything about you that makes you you is these self-same reactions.

Please, go and pick up a different fucking book. You're just embarrasing yourself here.

 

[dtorge39]

My point was never to show that intelligence will always be unable to provide interstellar colonies, my point was that being able to live beyond your planet of origin is not a direct consequence of intelligence. It can, but it doesn't have to.

Ah, yes, it can. And, if it doesn't, the lifeform will have a limited lifespan, defined by the lifespan of its solar system. This indeed does make it a matter of evolution. Intelligence becomes the trait that makes long-term survival possible. The selection pressure of limited solar system lifespans makes the trait extremely valuable.

There are many cases of animals who dwell on currently isolated land masses, but these land masses were not always isolated.

Correctamundo!! But they were sure isolated since more than 10,000 years ago, so you do the math.

The planetary replication technology I've been alluding to would have included living animals/plants, so whatever their distribution was at the time of the replication, this would be evident in the new Earth. It is only the living civilizations of humans for which I think there would be an ethical issue with replicating-thus, you get Adam and Eve. Note that Adam and Eve would have inherited a world which would have had signs of pre-historic civilization.

Why are there no rhinoceros in Brazil? Kangaroos in Africa? Lions in Australia?
Those regions could have had similar ecosystems without a problem. But then again what am I doing? If the flood ever happened, there would be no land dwelling animals of any kind (unless they found a way to get the required nutrients out of the sand).
And again, if such an event would happen, that also mean that all civilizations from that time would have been gone also, which we have already established that many civilization have thrived continuously trough every time period way before the bible establishes the world to have been created.
There is absolutely no way that you proposition is not incompatible with the bible, and no twists or turns you make will be able to go around this.

Again, I don't see any reason to expect all animals to exist throughout the entire globe. Some migrate out of necessity and survive, some stay local and survive (given adequate local resources), and some stay local and go extinct. Some even migrate and still go extinct.

Per the Bible the land dwelling animals survived the flood thanks to the Ark.

And the evidence for continuously thriving civilizations through the time of Adam/Eve is still circumstantial evidence. It is also dependent on the precise date of Adam/Eve, which is only estimated by the Bible. You need to identify a continous 'cultural' thread through the time period in question, one that could only survive through being passed from living parent to living child. I don't think much evidence exists, if any at all.

I would answer that not all mathematical questions necessarily represent depictions of reality which are relevant to us (or God). For example, in a multi-verse, would a God be concerned about regions that cannot support any form of life? I doubt it. This may be knowledge, but it is outside of the system that God would care about, and useless knowledge from God's perspective. God knows everything He needs to know in his role as God.

mathematical questions do not depict anything, they are questions and not anwers. And about not concerning about the regions that do not support life, I'm sorry to say that the vast majority of th universe is uncapable to support life (and the regions of space that can't support life concerns me more precisely because they can't support life, i.e. it would kill you).
Now what upsets me about this paragraph is that in one statment you say that God doesn't give a damn about certain kinds of kowledge, but on the very next satment you claim that he knows everything (even tough nothing has to, i.e. non sequiteur). Oddly enough your depiction of God start to sound more like the traditional supernatural being kind of God instead of Super-advanced alien species kind of God (the one that you were proposing).

OK, God knows everything that He needs to know in order to perform His role as God. (This need not include ALL knowledge possible). This is not a supernatural God, rather a very natural one. Existing inside of the laws of physics, not outside.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The planetary replication technology I've been alluding to would have included living animals/plants, so whatever their distribution was at the time of the replication, this would be evident in the new Earth. It is only the living civilizations of humans for which I think there would be an ethical issue with replicating-thus, you get Adam and Eve. Note that Adam and Eve would have inherited a world which would have had signs of pre-historic civilization.

I'm sorry but this was direct to the Noah's ark incident. Unless the event of Noahs ark was simultaneous with the creation of Adam and Eve then I would understand.

Again, I don't see any reason to expect all animals to exist throughout the entire globe.

Neither did I, my argument was about if tht was the case we would have a more uniform distribution rather then the geographic despairity we see today.

Per the Bible the land dwelling animals survived the flood thanks to the Ark.

And they would live out of what? Did they find a way to make photosyntesis?

But yet again you have already forgot of all the problems raised, we are talking of this as it was even possible for a global flood to have ocured (without living any evidece). But now that you mention there is an all no level or nonsense with this story, if the Xenu was able to bend the laws of physics and flood the entire world, he would also be able to (and much easier to preform) scoop the inahbitants to the space ship instead of going trough the all moking arround with a guy making a boat. secondly what would be the bloody point of flooding?

And the evidence for continuously thriving civilizations through the time of Adam/Eve is still circumstantial evidence. It is also dependent on the precise date of Adam/Eve, which is only estimated by the Bible. You need to identify a continous 'cultural' thread through the time period in question, one that could only survive through being passed from living parent to living child. I don't think much evidence exists, if any at all.

I Just showed you a list of all the aceint human cultures, pick any date you like an you will be able to find in that list a civilization that has lived for at least 1k years after and before on distinct areas of the globe. To deny this you are simply denying reality, you said you would establish your case without denying reality, well ou kind of just did that, so what makes you any better then any other cretionist?

And for fuck sake, Stop lagging one post behind.

 

[dtorge39]

I know a lot more about science than you give me credit. I've read myraids of books on quantum physics, partical physics, cosmology, biology, neurology, AI, and chemistry, I may not have a PhD, but reading gives a broad knowledge.

I call shananigans on that.
But if I am wrong then you will not have any poblem posting the definition of each one of them, or will you?

I don't see much point to posting definitions for terms which could just as easily be found at dictionary.com or wikipedia.org

You are quick to dismiss my statements as illogical, but fail to point out the reasons why. Very convenient. But also unproductive.

 

[dtorge39]

Yes, but I would qualify the definition as 'knowing all things which are knowable, or, perceiving all things which are perceivable."

What constitutes knowable or perceivable? Does ths definition of omniscient allow for knowledge of future events?

I think it depends on the future event, and to what degree of precision. Quantum mechanics precludes a perfect knowledge of the future (or past for that matter). What you get are statistical probabilities. Some events will have a greater degree of predictability than others, depending on how many paths there are to the same event and the underlying probabilities of each path.

I'd say God has a perfect knowledge of the probabilities.

 

[dtorge39]

Yes, I did read your post. Love is not all biochemical, as love is more than just emotion.
What is the biochemical reaction in play when a peace corps recruit decides to dedicate months of their life to fighting AIDS?
What is the biochemical reaction in play when a child sends their allowance money in to help rebuild Haiti?
What is the biochemical reaction in play when a teacher stays with a student beyond the alloted time to help them understand a concept?

These actions of love are performed because one knows that it is the 'right' thing to do. They know it through logic, not chemistry. And there is no upper limit on the actions that can be motivated by this kind of love. It is the same motivation that led God to create your spirit, and your Earth.

Absolute guff of the most ignorant order. How do you 'know' something? That's f***** right, genius, electrochemical reactions in the f***** brain. All your emotions, all your thoughts, everything about you that makes you you is these self-same reactions.

Please, go and pick up a different f***** book. You're just embarrasing yourself here.

Yes, but the electrochemical reactions involved in the knowledge we have doesn't guarantee that each act of love noted above will be carried out. I can know something is right, but I won't necessarily do it. Higher love is when one doesn't feel compelled to love, but does it anyway. And there is no limit to this type of love.

The inevitable highest forms of love held by the highest evolved beings are what makes it highly improbable that we are here by blind chance, only to live out very brief lives.

 

[OnkelCannabia]

What happened? Where are all the chew toys coming from?

 

[dtorge39]

But yet again you have already forgot of all the problems raised, we are talking of this as it was even possible for a global flood to have ocured (without living any evidece). But now that you mention there is an all no level or nonsense with this story, if the Xenu was able to bend the laws of physics and flood the entire world, he would also be able to (and much easier to preform) scoop the inahbitants to the space ship instead of going trough the all moking arround with a guy making a boat. secondly what would be the bloody point of flooding?

But the intention of the flood was to wipe out the wicked, who failed to repent following Noah's admonitions to do so. The Bible says the people were very violent in those days. At any rate, God's intention was to find a efficient way to wipe out the wicked, which he did through flood.

I don't know what evidence you would expect to see today of this flood. The animals survived because they made adequate preparations to live on the ark for a period of time. Following the flood, one would expect plants to grow from seeds of pre-existing plants, etc. I don't think the flood lasted long enough to leave a geological marker. Perhaps the only marker would be DNA analysis of existing living humans, where we have already established that the human population came to a perilous low at some point in its history.

And the evidence for continuously thriving civilizations through the time of Adam/Eve is still circumstantial evidence. It is also dependent on the precise date of Adam/Eve, which is only estimated by the Bible. You need to identify a continous 'cultural' thread through the time period in question, one that could only survive through being passed from living parent to living child. I don't think much evidence exists, if any at all.

I Just showed you a list of all the aceint human cultures, pick any date you like an you will be able to find in that list a civilization that has lived for at least 1k years after and before on distinct areas of the globe. To deny this you are simply denying reality, you said you would establish your case without denying reality, well ou kind of just did that, so what makes you any better then any other cretionist?

But your ancient cultures, for the most part, all follow a reasonable expectation of the beginning of the world per Genesis of the Bible--with the possible exception of some of the ancient Egyptian cultures. But even in that case, the cultures are subdivided by approximate time periods, many times missing a definitive link with the previous. And again, to reiterate, you would expect some evidence of human habitation to be incorporated into the new Earth (under the assumption it is a *copy* of a prior one).

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I don't see much point to posting definitions for terms which could just as easily be found at dictionary.com or wikipedia.org
You are quick to dismiss my statements as illogical, but fail to point out the reasons why. Very convenient. But also unproductive.

The reason why they were dismissed was because the sentence did not composed any meaningful sense what so ever, prompting me to point you out that you don't have a single clue what did the words even mean (you seen them somewhere, it sound scientific enough for you and you used them without knowing what they are).
If you can't even provide the definitions of it (something that you even said that you could have simply copied from somewhere on the web) then you have simply forfeited you argument.

Yes, but the electrochemical reactions involved in the knowledge we have doesn't guarantee that each act of love noted above will be carried out. I can know something is right, but I won't necessarily do it. Higher love is when one doesn't feel compelled to love, but does it anyway. And there is no limit to this type of love.
The inevitable highest forms of love held by the highest evolved beings are what makes it highly improbable that we are here by blind chance, only to live out very brief lives.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but the kind of "Love" you define does not exist in anyway shape or form.
Love is necessarily an emotion, if you do not have an emotional momentum then you can't feel love. If you happen do something selfless anyway, it will not be out of love but out of another motivational force, like pity (which is another emotion that is also a driving force for selfless actions).

But yet again you have already forgot of all the problems raised, we are talking of this as it was even possible for a global flood to have ocured (without living any evidece). But now that you mention there is an all no level or nonsense with this story, if the Xenu was able to bend the laws of physics and flood the entire world, he would also be able to (and much easier to preform) scoop the inahbitants to the space ship instead of going trough the all moking arround with a guy making a boat. secondly what would be the bloody point of flooding?

But the intention of the flood was to wipe out the wicked, who failed to repent following Noah's admonitions to do so. The Bible says the people were very violent in those days. At any rate, God's intention was to find a efficient way to wipe out the wicked, which he did through flood.
I don't know what evidence you would expect to see today of this flood. The animals survived because they made adequate preparations to live on the ark for a period of time. Following the flood, one would expect plants to grow from seeds of pre-existing plants, etc. I don't think the flood lasted long enough to leave a geological marker. Perhaps the only marker would be DNA analysis of existing living humans, where we have already established that the human population came to a perilous low at some point in its history.

You had just quoted me dude. This is the problems I have raised:
1. That a global flood would have been impossible
2. That if 1 is false then it would have to leave evidence (which didn't)
3. Even if 1 and 2 were false, god wouldn't be any motivation to do anything.
4. Even if all previous were false, there wouldn't be any motivation to do so in the way it was described(in fact God would have to be pretty fucking stupid for someone with the technology to replicate worlds).

What you did was to quote the all thing, tangently touching on point 2 and 3 while forgetting everything else.
But let me retort to the points in which you have touched.
1. You have peddled the claim that it would raise ethical problems by reproducing entire human civilizations. And now you are arguing for mass murder of every innocent man, woman and child as a righteous punishment for the mundane wickedness of some?
2. It would have been impossible for a man to have created a boat large enough to accommodate for every land dwelling species, not forgetting that most of them would be geographically disconnected.
3. If a global flood had happen, even if we grant that the water can come and go with magic and without any serious consequences for (let's say gravity, atmosphere, global temperature and so on), it would leave a tremendous scar on the earth's surface.
4. If a global flood had happen, all trees and vegetation would have been completely gone, saying that seeds would survive, would be utter nonsense since a big chunk of plants don't produce seeds, at any season you would like to place the flood in then every single plant that produce seeds on a different season would not survive either.
5. Given 4, any meaningful vegetation would take months to grow, herbivores would starve and go extinct, and carnivores would starve or lead large amounts of herbivores to extinction (and as the herbivores go extinct they too would also go extinct).
6. The low number of humanoid ancestry did not take place in less than 15K years, and it did not amount to less than 20 individuals. (both values with large and conservative margins) And if you want to use that has evidence then I would like to remind you that every other species should have suffered the same problem at approximately the same time, which they didn't.

But your ancient cultures, for the most part, all follow a reasonable expectation of the beginning of the world per Genesis of the Bible--with the possible exception of some of the ancient Egyptian cultures. But even in that case, the cultures are subdivided by approximate time periods, many times missing a definitive link with the previous. And again, to reiterate, you would expect some evidence of human habitation to be incorporated into the new Earth (under the assumption it is a *copy* of a prior one).

1. No they don't, to say that it did, is to miss the placement of the accounts by a factor of 2 (i.e. all the events could have happened twice).
2. Most cultures are in opposite sides of the world (ex. some in the Indies and others in the Americas).
3. You would not expect that a single culture would last for 5K years (even though some did), but anywhere you find a transition in one culture to another there is another culture somewhere else that has existed for about 1k years and kept doing so for another 1k years, so your objection is mute.

And frankly you have not forward any new argument, I could have just pointed you out to a point I had previously made (which you tend to forget or ignore). You are just avoiding the inevitable. I seriously would like not to waste more time with this nonsense, and since your argument has been debunked to my satisfaction, I will consider this exchange over. Either you want to learn something and grow up or to ignore everything and keep your ignorance, it's your prerogative, it is a pointless waste of my time trying to convince anyone who will simply not chage his mind.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Yes, but the electrochemical reactions involved in the knowledge we have doesn't guarantee that each act of love noted above will be carried out. I can know something is right, but I won't necessarily do it. Higher love is when one doesn't feel compelled to love, but does it anyway. And there is no limit to this type of love.

The inevitable highest forms of love held by the highest evolved beings are what makes it highly improbable that we are here by blind chance, only to live out very brief lives.

Actually, you can know no such thing. All morality is subjective, and is a result of our evolutionary past.

Oh, and before you continue to erect this guff about 'higher forms of love', please demonstrate that they actually exist in a critically robust fashion.

Finally, there is no such thing as a 'higher evolved being'. If you think there is, then evolution is yet another topic on which you don't have the first fucking clue of what you're talking about. Not to mention that 'blind chance' is not a fucking factor, except in the minds of the terminally fucking stupid. Science doesn't, in any field of endeavour, postulate 'blind chance' bull well-defined and testable natural mechanisms.

I'd call this an ignorance fail, but it's such a successful demonstration of ignorance that it's almost worthy of a fucking award. You have much to learn, young padawan.

 

[e2iPi]

I'd say God has a perfect knowledge of the probabilities.

You do realize that this statement is a non sequitur, don't you? It's logically impossible.

I don't know what evidence you would expect to see today of this flood.

I'm not a geologist, but I would hazard a guess that we would see a uniform, worldwide sedimentary layer. I would expect to find a lot of fossils buried in that sedimentary layer - of all kinds of animals and plants. Sudden floods provide excellent conditions for fossilization.
I'm not a biologist, but I would also predict that we would see evidence that EVERY species on Earth experienced a genetic bottleneck at the exact same time.
Those are just three testable predictions--which have been tested, and falsified.

Following the flood, one would expect plants to grow from seeds of pre-existing plants, etc.

Right, do this experiment. Take a cow, and put it in a freshly plowed field. Throw some grass seeds down and see if the cow lives. My prediction is that you will end up with a dead cow.

I don't think the flood lasted long enough to leave a geological marker.

Floods leave indications that they occurred. Global floods should leave global indications.

Perhaps the only marker would be DNA analysis of existing living humans, where we have already established that the human population came to a perilous low at some point in its history.

Yes, that point was roughly 70,000 years ago when humans were reduced to a population of approximately 15,000 individuals. Other estimates put the number as low as 2000 individuals. Nowhere is it reduced to 8 individuals except in the Biblical myth.

-1