Anthropomorphising God = Automatic L

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00][music] [music] >> The other thing about human creation is that um uh I don't really think like I get I get that's what the Bible says.

[00:00:18]But I don't think there's really there isn't much of a way to test that, but I think that there actually is kind of a way to test it and I think it essentially falsifies creation in a big way. Um and it kind of proves evolution in a big way because I don't know if you ever make this claim that evolution is unfalsifiable.

[00:00:43]Um some people do say that.

[00:00:45]I think that's really silly.

[00:00:47]Um now it's true that today we know so much about evolution that whenever somebody brings up like uh a a new study that finds something that seems to seems to contradict evolution, we typically say this does not disprove all the stuff we already know. So it sounds like we're saying it's unfalsifiable, but um evolution was actually could have been falsified around 100 years ago and it would have been the easiest thing in the world to do.

[00:01:19]Because evolution, like with the missing links, those have to be there if evolution is true. Now like I get that you can make the argument that just God created all of the creatures, so all the creatures we find are just God's creation. It doesn't prove one thing or the other. Fine. But the thing that would have for sure disproven evolution was the genetic hierarchies and the relatedness between organisms.

[00:01:44]Uh and well, that would have totally falsified it. Instead, it came true in basically exactly the way we thought it would.

[00:01:54]And the creationist lens to this with the whole common designer thing, uh I think fails so many tests that it's a really huge problem.

[00:02:04]This is exactly the last conversation we had.

[00:02:07]Um >> So, to the two pieces of evidence you have for evolution, because we know the fossil record doesn't support it at the level it should. There's it should be innumerable transitional fossils, there's a handful.

[00:02:17]So, what we're looking vestigiality is not a good talking point anymore, junk DNA isn't. So, we've got genetic similarity and the the human transitional >> down for later.

[00:02:28]It's not. It's it was something they wanted to use, but now they're figuring out that it's mostly code that they just didn't know what it was doing. But, the prediction was that there would be a bunch of code that was a result of, you know, millennia, generations, thousands of generations of mutations and so, but it turns out that it was just things happening that we didn't know. But, anyways, So, yeah, you the evidence for evolution is Homo erectus and is genetic similarity. Homo erectus I have no good answer for if it's legitimately I don't want to just marginalize science, but if it's a legitimate specimen, that's a good piece of evidence for evolution.

[00:03:01]The genetic similarity thing, I do agree with the genetic the common designer, because software programmers reuse code reuse code all the time. It's a best practice.

[00:03:09]So, I wouldn't expect a primate that is similar to us physiologically to have novel genetic information. Why why would you build an entirely novel gene code for something that has similar physiology?

[00:03:27]I just don't I don't see why they I To me, if the instruction set says build a bone, then that build a bone and I'm simplifying this dramatically, simplifying this, but if it's build a bone, then the bone building plan for them and the bone building plan for us should be reused.

[00:03:44]It's a best practice for software coders to do that. So, I don't I mean, the problem with using like a a code thing is you believe in separate creation. There actually is no expectation that anything would be shared because God's perfectly within God's purview and his power and his nature whatever to just do it all completely differently.

[00:04:09]To anthropomorphize God in this way is really a kind of to undermine God as a as an answer.

[00:04:16]But and and when you put it this way, you're making your evidence indistinguishable from mine. We know for certain that if the genetic hierarchies and the the correlation between phenotype and genotype collapsed, we know that would have proven evolution false. When you when you say but God could do this, it's also the case that God because the creations are separate, they would have absolutely nothing at all in common. That is also true. So this argument about code doesn't really elevate um the theistic or the creation account really it doesn't elevate it in any way. And I don't think it really preserves it very well because I don't know hardly anything about coding. I asked a quick little question to the AI overlord here because I I outsource all my thinking to this. It's smarter than me. Praise our overlords. Hail Sam Altman. Hail Peter Thiel. Whatever. Um but uh >> [laughter] >> but >> Make friends with them. That's a good move, yeah.

[00:05:18]>> Linux and Windows do almost exactly the same kinds of things. You can create folders. You can whatever people do on computers. I don't know.

[00:05:29]But you can't actually translate hardly any of the code between them. And those are separate creations, completely different codes. That's the kind of thing I would actually expect if we have separate creation.

[00:05:42]I wouldn't have any expectation that the genetic code would actually be transferable >> Well, between them.

[00:05:48]>> Right. So, you you think God wouldn't do that and I think he would and obviously the right answer is the right answer.

[00:05:54]>> of it.

[00:05:57]Well, I can make an argument for it and I've seen obviously the the comments in the chat. Has he talked about Minecraft?

[00:06:03]Yeah, but you know, I'm a simulation [laughter] guy. I hope I hope we don't.

[00:06:06]I don't want to go to Minecraft.

[00:06:08]>> I don't want to go that route, but I think we're in an information fundamental reality and what's fundamental to life is information. And so, if if you look at creation like a computer program, like a programmer, and if the best practices for human code writers is to reuse code where they can, you can make the argument that if we're specially for made the image of God that we would do something similar. I could you either you could Google it or I could you could I could show my screen and I could Google it. Do software programmers reuse code? Yes, all the time.

[00:06:38]Why do they reuse code? It's the best practice. Yeah. Redun- uh so, you can obviously >> doesn't God does not have human limitations.

[00:06:47]Well, but he's an efficient God. He's shown that over and over through his creation, through his attributes.

[00:06:52]I I don't agree with the omni attributes, but I would agree that he's efficient and he's very legal minded.

[00:06:59]He's very attention to detail. So, it's just like again, at at the end of the day with this argument, >> Um >> You would say God wouldn't do it and I would say God would do it and I mean, if you want to make a scriptural argument for which one is more likely to be true, I think that mine is going to be better.

[00:07:14]Yours is just a subjective take on who you perceive a God you don't believe in to be. But the idea for the pro- for the the idea for the code to be the same would be the best practice and I don't see why he wouldn't do that. It's if again, if it's if it's the same issue.

[00:07:29]>> that argument, if you if you want to make that argument that God does this thing with DNA because God is efficient or God is uh What did you say? You said legally minded, efficient, and something. But that that's actually contradictory to what we know about life. Um God for some reason created life to be uh extraordinarily wasteful. We just know that energy is lost at every uh step in the system. Like got God made it so you can't live unless you eat um and eating creates poop and poop has germs and it's really nasty for you and we kind of only fairly recently >> I don't mind pooping. What's the issue with either of those? What does that have to do with God? It's extremely inefficient. So if if the biological observation 60% of our entire economic system is based on us eating and pooping. That's like the vast majority of what humans do on the earth to stay busy and to exchange services. Yes, I know. But there's absolutely no reason for it to be that way. And if God if DNA has the structure it does across species because God's interested in efficiency, then why did God create life to be unbelievably inefficient like Rubisco being that's the carbon fixing enzyme for plants in photosynthesis.

[00:08:47]Why did God create it to be the most inefficient enzyme like imaginable [clears throat] almost? And why is it that we waste like fine. Eating is great. I like to eat but imagine if we were like entirely uh if if we didn't have to poop because we're just entirely resource uh efficient or whatever. So you only had to eat way out of my >> once a year and you just evaporated all of your food waste instead of poop.

[00:09:15]>> done a cost and cost-benefit analysis on pooping but I just think I think it's a I think it's a good system. It's a conspiracy by big by big plumbing.

[00:09:24]Yeah, the exactly. It was plumbing that started this. So I just I think that it whatever. I think that God is efficient and I think that if we don't want to use the efficiency argument which there's obviously some subjectivity there, I'll just use the argument that we're made in his image and it's what we do. And so we do the things that he does because we're like him, just like kids do what their dad does. But it again, if you Google it just for fun.

[00:09:46]Let me do it. It's do software programmers reuse code? Yes. Why? And it's it's the industry standard and it's for many many reasons. I think it would be ridiculous to expect God to create an individual unique 4 billion base pair code for all 8 million animals on the earth. That that seems like a utterly ridiculous task. Well, but if the opposite were the case, then it would simply proclaim his power and his majesty, which is the argument that Christians make when we go, "Okay, look, you guys thought that the whole universe like everybody it wasn't like uniquely Christian, but everybody thought the whole universe was just the stuff we can see with the naked eye.

[00:10:26]What the hell is the deal with God creating trillions of galaxy well, we can't hundreds of billions of galaxies in the observable universe. And all this other stuff, it's incredibly wasteful and people uh people countered that with, "Oh, that's just God proclaiming his great power and his majesty and his ability." It's like we would see that would be the explanation uh if life was the opposite way that we're talking about now. And so again, it's not it doesn't If it was the opposite we would still proclaim that there's evidence of it. An infinite universe with infinite galaxies shows how massive and how much power he has obviously to create an infinite universe. So the heavens declare the glory of God. Building an efficient gene code glory of God To me it shows the brilliance of God for him to build inner working information systems that are efficient and optimized. Like I to me it would be like it be And again, this is just you and I both judging God. I think and I believe God is good and so obviously I I go, "Good job here, chef. Nice nice meal you prepared and you go this is terrible, it's undercooked. So we're both, you know, critiquing the chef or whatever, but in your scenario, he builds in a unique gene code for everyone to show how powerful he is, and in my scenario, he reuses code where he can to be efficient and it's optimized and that's a brilliant move. So whatever, it's subjective. If humans went to rounds and every time they tried to make a toothpick, they ended up making the Taj Mahal, we would say this that doesn't actually make any sense. But if they had godly power, there would be no real reason to critique it cuz it's like this doesn't get in the way of anything.

[00:12:06]Humans are efficient because of our limit because of the limitations that we have. But God doesn't have those limitations. So to apply it to God is just a little bit strange. I'm just saying if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? You can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. The Big Bang violates the second law of thermodynamics. Everything that's created requires a creator. Show me curvature. There are no missing links.

[00:12:32]Evolution has never been observed. The earth is only 6,000 years old.

[00:12:40]>> [music]