Questions to God. (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

Lately, my go to reheat time for food in the microwave is either 45 or 47 seconds.

Fascinating. Mine is either "55" or "111" because I'm lazy and it's easier to hit one button successively.

Dang, am I lazy, thinking now about that.

 

[Isaac]

This doesn't mean she was the first woman of our species, or that she lived in isolation, but rather that her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the only mtDNA lineage that has survived and is present in all living humans today

Ahh, yes, that seems very likely

It just so happens that while it appears a person was created that led to other persons, yet because we simply could not bring ourselves to say a Maybe on that, we'll assume something so bizarrely unlikely instead. You're grasping at straws, that's what that's called

 

[GaP42]

Let's ask Grok a few questions, shall we.

LMAO - I hope you trust to use LLMs without question to give you failsafe answers in your coding or other work. Good luck with that.
The LLM is responding to the parameters set. They may appear initially to be reasonable: to use "strict logic, mathematical probability and observational science" - very broad. And yet there is no examination of the logic or the scope of observations used. It would be interesting to find out for instance if/how observations made in geology, embryology, molecular biology, genetics etc can be ignored in the processes that Grok used in that directed discussion. Also I have serious concerns with such a discussion with an LLM that is designed to listen and pickup on the nuanced biases of the presenter and provide positive affirmation of those views. Thirdly, and somewhat in illustration of the previous point there are inherent assumptions being made in the subsequent questions which I would expect GROK to pick up on: eg that abiogenesis requires the simultaneous accumulation of some 300-400 genes in order for first life to spontaneously appear, or that the genetic changes leading from dinosaurs to birds required the full set of fully functional genes to be present (btw: the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct - the dinosaurs survived as birds: so not sure how GROK would not even raise that point if it was not so agreeable to the viewpoint of the presenter). And specifically here is one example in which the question is loaded with predirection: "Okay, follow my chain of reasoning here. If the trillions and trillions of life forms on the planet, each one of them even the so-called simplest on of them, demonstrating just **overwhelming design**, I mean, **it’s just incredibly brilliant**. The design of life. Does that evidence then not mean that the evidence of an intelligent designer is **overwhelming?**”
I wonder how repeatable this is (either exact same prompts or with less coloured or asking for the chain of reasoning - ah - I see someone has already done that: Grok comes up with a different conclusions: eg.:

I just asked Grok this question: only using strict logic, observational science, and mathematical probability, will you tell me the best explanation for where life came from and where all the living things on the planet came from? This was the response:

Using strict logic, observational science, and mathematical probability, the best explanation for the origin of life and the diversity of all living things on Earth is the combination of abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection. Below, I’ll break this down into two parts: where life came from and where all living things came from.

Where Life Came From: Abiogenesis , Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life originated from non-living matter through natural processes. This explanation is supported by:

Observational Science:Experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment (conducted in 1953) showed that organic compounds—such as amino acids, the building blocks of life—can form from inorganic materials (e.g., water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen) under conditions thought to mimic early Earth. This demonstrates that the basic components of life could arise naturally, without requiring a living precursor.

Strict Logic:If life exists now and did not always exist (as geological evidence suggests), it must have arisen from non-living matter at some point. Abiogenesis provides a step-by-step process where simple molecules combine into more complex ones, eventually leading to self-replicating systems—a logical progression grounded in chemistry and physics.

Mathematical Probability:Critics often argue that the odds of life forming by chance are astronomically low. However, abiogenesis is not purely random. Chemical reactions follow natural laws, and certain conditions (e.g., energy from lightning or volcanic heat) can favor the formation of complex molecules. Over billions of years, these processes increase the likelihood of life emerging. While exact probabilities are hard to pin down, the vast timescale and the non-random nature of chemical interactions make this plausible.Thus, abiogenesis is the best explanation for where life came from, as it aligns with observed chemical processes, logical reasoning, and probabilistic feasibility over geological time.

Where All Living Things Came From: Evolution by Natural Selection Evolution by natural selection, proposed by Charles Darwin, explains how the diversity of living things on Earth arose from a common origin. This theory is supported by:

Observational Science:The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and spans multiple fields:

Fossil Records: Fossils show a clear progression from simple organisms (e.g., single-celled bacteria) to more complex ones (e.g., mammals) over billions of years.

Comparative Anatomy: Similarities in bone structure (e.g., the pentadactyl limb in humans, bats, and whales) suggest different species share a common ancestor.

Embryology: Early embryos of diverse species (e.g., humans and fish) look remarkably similar, pointing to shared evolutionary origins.

Molecular Biology: DNA and protein similarities across species (e.g., humans and chimps sharing ~98% of their DNA) provide strong evidence of common descent.

Strict Logic:If life began as a simple form (via abiogenesis), a mechanism must explain how it diversified into the millions of species we see today. Natural selection—where organisms with traits better suited to their environment survive and reproduce—logically accounts for this. Over time, small changes accumulate, leading to new species, a process consistent with observed patterns in nature.

Mathematical Probability:Evolution involves both random mutations and non-random natural selection. While a specific mutation might be rare, the vast timescales (billions of years) and large populations of organisms make such changes statistically likely. Natural selection then filters these mutations, favoring those that improve survival or reproduction. This directed process increases the probability of complex organisms evolving from simpler ones, making evolution a robust explanation. Thus, evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for where all living things came from, as it is backed by extensive evidence, logical consistency, and probabilistic reasoning.

Conclusion: The best explanation for the origin of life and the diversity of living things on Earth, using strict logic, observational science, and mathematical probability, is as follows: Life originated through abiogenesis, where non-living matter naturally formed the building blocks of life, eventually leading to self-replicating systems. The diversity of all living things arose through evolution by natural selection, where simple life forms diversified into complex species over billions of years, driven by environmental pressures and genetic changes.

This combination is grounded in testable evidence, follows logical principles, and accounts for the probabilities involved in natural processes over immense timescales.

when asked to provide the mathematical probability of its analysis of happening it said this: While forming a specific self-replicating molecule by chance is improbable (∼10−31\sim 10^{-31}\sim 10^{-31}), the vast number of chemical trials (∼1044\sim 10^{44}\sim 10^{44}) and multiple functional sequences make abiogenesis highly probable (approaching certainty) over 500 million years on early Earth. Caveats: Exact probabilities depend on unknowns (e.g., exact conditions, minimal life requirements). Ongoing research into prebiotic chemistry may refine these estimates, but abiogenesis remains the most empirically grounded explanation.

 

[NauticalGent]

Fascinating. Mine is either "55" or "111" because I'm lazy and it's easier to hit one button successively.

Dang, am I lazy, thinking now about that.

Do you ĥave a +30 button? Its the only button that matters...

 

[GaP42]

You stated

You keep worshipipng your Nothing, I won't stop you

You have some mistaken conception of an atheistic view - I cannot worship something which is nothing - it does appear illogical to try. However you may continue to somehow believe in a fantasy which amounts to nothing.

Yes not much point to continuing to flog a dead horse - except for the lessons it might provide to others:

Also you said

And actually the bar is set pretty low for evidence, since none of us were there or can personally have knowledge based on that - we just know a whole lot of something came from nothing at some point along the way.

Well you provide NO evidence / refuse to look for it? and would like to ignore any historical evidence because you/we were not physically there. So fossils were planted by the devil - type logic no doubt.

if evolution were true,

Well give me something else that can stand up to scrutiny. I do not understand your logic/position: create those 2 people "poof" or "proof". But you were not there were you?

 

[Isaac]

Do you ĥave a +30 button? Its the only button that matters...

I do but strangely I'm not in the habit of using it. Lol .. First world concerns

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Simply put, if evolution were true, we wouldn't all trace back directly to one person,

Actually, that statement is in question.

It makes a lot of sense if that person was created though, or those 2 people.

That leads a little deeper. Here's the conundrum. If evolution isn't true because "God did it" then why did God leave behind among His many creations the very strong, nearly irrefutable evidence that evolution is real and applies to all creatures that we have found on Earth? If we were created as Man (in God's image, no less), WHY can we trace back the evolutionary changes that separate us from earlier hominids. Because that, we absolutely CAN do. The "tree of life" diagram has been built to show every change - and can tell you WHICH gene changed. If God wanted us to believe in Adam and Eve, then why do we have strong evidence for Grok the caveman as an ancestor?

Before you say "It is Satan's illusion meant to confuse us", I've always heard that Satan cannot create, only God has that power. I just find all of this evidence that contradicts creationism hard to explain. Because it SEEMS like we are being intentionally led astray by a creation of God, yet God is the one that wants to lead us on a perfect path. I don't see it.

 

[Isaac]

You stated

You have some mistaken conception of an atheistic view - I cannot worship something which is nothing - it does appear illogical to try. However you may continue to somehow believe in a fantasy which amounts to nothing.

Yes not much point to continuing to flog a dead horse - except for the lessons it might provide to others:

Also you said

Well you provide NO evidence / refuse to look for it? and would like to ignore any historical evidence because you/we were not physically there. So fossils were planted by the devil - type logic no doubt.


Well give me something else that can stand up to scrutiny. I do not understand your logic/position: create those 2 people "poof" or "proof". But you were not there were you?

Actually some of the most amazing evidence of all doesn't come until after you believe in God and submit yourself wholeheartedly to him. After that point you know inside your heart and mind that it is for sure true, as he completely changes your life, helps you constantly, and speaks to you.. But you don't get that without believing, so it's of little use to you at this point

 

[GaP42]

Actually some of the most amazing evidence of all doesn't come until after you believe in God and submit yourself wholeheartedly to him. After that point you know inside your heart and mind that it is for sure true, as he completely changes your life, helps you constantly, and speaks to you.. But you don't get that without believing, so it's of little use to you at this point

So your concept of evidence is entirely dependent on whether you believe... sorry for you - that is not evidence. It is of little use to you too BTW.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Actually some of the most amazing evidence of all doesn't come until after you believe in God and submit yourself wholeheartedly to him. After that point you know inside your heart and mind that it is for sure true

In other words, you have allowed bias to creep into your evaluation rather than keeping it strictly logical. That "speaks to you" has never happened to me even when I was studying the Bible, looking for answer or comfort while watching my mother die a long, slow, lingering death in the fog of dementia. The Bible held NOTHING for me and I heard no voices. If you don't experience the voices, I guess you aren't equipped to believe in the rest of it all to have been willfully created.

 

[Isaac]

So your concept of evidence is entirely dependent on whether you believe... sorry for you - that is not evidence. It is of little use to you too BTW.

Oh believe me, it's very useful for life. I've benefited greatly from it and so do most of the people I know who are believers. And yes, that's exactly how spirituality works. You don't see the benefits and then cooperate, you cooperate and then see the benefits. Sorry that's just the way it is

 

[Isaac]

In other words, you have allowed bias to creep into your evaluation rather than keeping it strictly logical. That "speaks to you" has never happened to me even when I was studying the Bible, looking for answer or comfort while watching my mother die a long, slow, lingering death in the fog of dementia. The Bible held NOTHING for me and I heard no voices. If you don't experience the voices, I guess you aren't equipped to believe in the rest of it all to have been willfully created.

It definitely is a battle to drown out other voices.
But even compare it to meditation. Half the world swears by it, but there's no evidence it works until you try it. According to gab42, that means it's worthless, which makes absolutely no sense based on the testimony of 2 billion people

 

[GaP42]

Oh believe me, it's very useful for life. I've benefited greatly from it and so do most of the people I know who are believers. And yes, that's exactly how spirituality works. You don't see the benefits and then cooperate, you cooperate and then see the benefits. Sorry that's just the way it is

I have no doubt that many people find it a useful guide for how to conduct themselves in life (despite not being capable of holding to all the directives all the time). The issue is the add-ons and misguided efforts associated with religion and the belief in the flying spaghetti monster or some other supernatural being, and using it to guide/excuse personal actions. As I said some time back - grow up, become an adult!

 

[Mike Krailo]

If evolution isn't true because "God did it" then why did God leave behind among His many creations the very strong, nearly irrefutable evidence that evolution is real and applies to all creatures that we have found on Earth? If we were created as Man (in God's image, no less), WHY can we trace back the evolutionary changes that separate us from earlier hominids. Because that, we absolutely CAN do. The "tree of life" diagram has been built to show every change - and can tell you WHICH gene changed. If God wanted us to believe in Adam and Eve, then why do we have strong evidence for Grok the caveman as an ancestor?

The word evolution is thrown around as if it's a fact, but what exact type of evolution are we talking about? The only one that matters in my opinion is the one that all scientists refuse to honestly and truthfully graple with. Yes, I know they like to point their so called evidence, but when you drill down into the so called evidence, there is none to be found. Only assertions that non life is able to make selections based purely on biological chemistry or some other ridiculous assumptions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the crucial point of actual LIFE emerging from non life. How many zillions of years do we need to wait for all the other planets in the universe show any evidence of life? The fact that they insist on using life forms that are already fully formed to draw their conclusions is beyond circular reasoning. You don't get to start with dirt, you have to make your own dirt first. You don't get to start with proteins and amino acids, you have to make your own. Show me the proteins on mars or any other planet. The materialist fairy tale starts at nothing, then starts talking about building blocks of life, and then they love to use the word emerge as if it has some inherent power for the argument. There is no emerging that can be scientifically proven when you start from nothing. They love to fast-forward past the critical points of the process and claim after billions of years it will just happen. The universe is not a lab, it does not have a mind, so where is this absolute evidence at?

The whole video on Grok was a good example of how to use prompting to filter out all the garbage and focus on the actual evidence based on pure logic. Something we all have but don't use all the time unless it fits your world view. I thought it would ruffle some feathers, and it did just that.

 

[Isaac]

I have no doubt that many people find it a useful guide for how to conduct themselves in life (despite not being capable of holding to all the directives all the time). The issue is the add-ons and misguided efforts associated with religion and the belief in the flying spaghetti monster or some other supernatural being, and using it to guide/excuse personal actions. As I said some time back - grow up, become an adult!

I think the most disciplined and adult-like thing you can do is submit to God - it takes a humbling that few people know, and even the people who do struggle to do it well. Everyone else thinks they can be their own higher power, to the obvious degree of catastrophic failure therein that we see all around us. We can agree to disagree at this point - you either want to believe or you don't.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Only assertions that non life is able to make selections based purely on biological chemistry or some other ridiculous assumptions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the crucial point of actual LIFE emerging from non life.

See also the Miller-Urey experiment, which showed that it was possible to build the building blocks of life from the simplest molecules.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The word evolution is thrown around as if it's a fact, but what exact type of evolution are we talking about?

Evolution is actually an umbrella term. It includes mutation, adaptation, natural selection, and genetic mixing. Plus a few lesser components.

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the building blocks of life could be created through natural forces including heat and lightning. The modern dog showed that genetic mixing could create something new - since a dog is a selectively bred wolf. Natural selection showed us that the survivors of competition for resources are the ones better suited to go on. See also Homo neanderthalensis. Adaptation even works for humans. Look up the article from the NY Times on how Sherpa guides living near Mt. Everest have physiologically adapted to living in a thinner atmosphere. And that is HUMAN adaptation. In the tree of life diagrams, we can show each mutation that divides us from our predecessors. The number of research articles - both paleontological fossil analysis and modern biology labs - demonstrate genetic traits and modifications thereof. There are many hundreds of thousands of such papers, maybe into the millions, that lay out strong evidence that evolution is quite real.

If you believe that evolution is NOT a fact, you just aren't paying attention.

 

[Mike Krailo]

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the building blocks of life could be created through natural forces including heat and lightning

The complexity of the genesis event is so far and beyond what that experiment demonstrates. I see a power source and sea water in a glass tube beaker system.

How long today does it take for a human being to replicate to the point that it could live on it's own with no mother or father? Maybe 9 or 10 years. So for even a human being to emerge out of primordial soup, it's going to have quite a hard time surviving without any food and more importantly no mother or father to feed it. Just the genesis of the ecosystem alone is a monumental task and humans couldn't do it on mars even if they wanted to, but evolutionists think it all happened by natural forces. That first life form has to eat, where did all that food come from to support life? It's a huge complex eco system that has to first be in place before any real biological life could ever exist even if it were dropped off fully formed.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Molecular Biology: DNA and protein similarities across species (e.g., humans and chimps sharing ~98% of their DNA) provide strong evidence of common descent.

No, DNA is information and lots of it. A's, C's, G's, and T's form the virtual biological code that creates the usable functional proteins. The various different functional differences of which are vastly different from species to species, hence different forms of life. That's observable and obvious. Very small differences can create large functional differences. The key is that the code itself does not form by natural causes out of non directed mindless matter. It just doesn't. There is no scientific experiment or any key abiogenesis way that is currently known to be possible.

So focusing in on already fully formed living things doesn't even come close to answering the main question. Where does that information encoded in DNA come from? I know there some that claim it happens naturally, but that is a flat out lie of gargantuan proportions. I'm talking about the original code, not fully formed code differences due to adaptations or other small differences. Information comes from a mind and no where else does it come naturally. I'm not talking about a snow flake either, yes that's a pattern, but it conveys no functional information.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I know there some that claim it happens naturally, but that is a flat out lie of gargantuan proportions.

Or not. Mike, there is no lie.

Earth's oceans are approximately 1.3x10^21 liters. Each liter is 3.34x10^25 molecules of water, or 4.34x10^46 molecules of water in the oceans. For the sake of argument, let's say that is how much water was present in primordial days. During the time when the oceans were turbulent with storms, water was stirring around constantly, and anything dissolved in it would be stirred around as well. Let's say that the concentration of that witch's brew back then was about like it is now, with 3.5% salt. According to Richard Feynman, at 20 degr. C a water molecule encounters on the order of 10^14 collisions per second. Each collision is 1 opportunity for the colliding molecules to do something constructive.

Each billion years is 3.154x10^16 seconds. In 1 billion years, you would have 4.34x10^46 x 0.035 x 10^14 x 3.154x10^16 collisions = 4.79x10^75 collisions. Nature would have at least that long if not twice that (i.e. 2 billion years) to iterate over possible collisions that led to formation of useful chemicals.

Let's say that the odds are 1 in a trillion that a collision between two molecules would lead towards life, and that you needed a trillion such collisions to actually start life. A trillion is 10^12. So that's a trillion collisions to go forward and a trillion forward steps required. So with those numbers, you STILL have 4.8x10^51 iterations. Want to change the odds to 1 in 1 quadrillion? That's 10^15, but you still have 4.8x10^45 opportunities within those odds.

Now, let's take into account that the concentration of those interesting precursors to life was probably no more than a part per million(10^6). Which means you still have 4.8x10^39 constructive collisions. That number in USA terms is 4.8 duodecillion. (Note that the UK uses different nomenclature for numbers that high.)

Nature iterates on her solutions by sloshing around the oceans with storms, by dissolving useful minerals, and then the Miller Urey experiment shows that those building blocks could really have been there. The odds suggest it not only COULD have happened, but was actually LIKELY to happen. And note that I didn't say "start HUMAN life"... just start life and watch where it goes.