Wednesday, February 18, 2026

The naturalistic Origin of Life is impossible.

 



The naturalistic Origin of Life is impossible. Abiogenesis requires so many miracles, it makes the resurrection of Jesus look common by comparison. You could put all the parts of a living cell together in a sterile solution, and after a bajillion years they still would not self-assemble into a living cell. Life requires two things: 1. Life requires functional information. That is, informational content which gives functional purpose to molecules. Without functional information, molecules in Life would have no purpose and therefore be unable to function. In all human experience, only intelligence creates functional information. 2. Life requires energy. In order to replicate and conduct metabolic processes, Life requires a constant supply of usable energy. Not just any energy will do - throwing your phone on the grill will not charge it, will it? It needs a specific type of energy, supplied in a specific way that your phone can use it. Life needs the same. In all human experience, only intelligence is able to build systems that can harness and process energy. But here is the paradox: These two things - information & energy - exist in fundamental opposition to each other. Virtually all forms of energy in the world destroy Life's simple molecules. Chemistry and physics do not naturally move in a life-friendly direction. They do the opposite. Life's very fragile molecules require very precise and specific conditions to exist. Conditions that can only be created and maintained by intelligent agents. Origin of Life research has proven this, as virtually every experiment claimed to show "progress" in OOL Research requires highly constrained, specific conditions and sophisticated chemical recipes that could never possibly exist in nature. Life must have been Divinely Designed. Only intelligence can invent functional information, and only intelligence can engineer the systems necessary to harness & produce energy for Life's systems. That's what The Science says.


Monday, February 16, 2026

Bike riding and discipleship

 

Today in sacrament meeting we heard a talk on agency and divine identity. The speaker is an adult convert in his 30s. A cyclist. He used a cycling analogy in his talk. LoToJa is a 200-mile bike race from Logan to Jackson Hole. In 2022 he raced as part of a relay team. But what stayed with him weren’t his own miles it was watching the solo riders. The ones who rode the whole distance alone. The next year, he did it solo. He finished in 12 hours. Respectable. Strong. But not the time he dreamed of. The following year he set a bold goal: ten hours. He trained hard. Really hard. He pushed himself, committed himself, expected more from himself. Finish time: 11 hours 36 minutes. Close enough to taste it… but still short. He assumed improvement would come mostly from big efforts longer rides, harder workouts, dramatic pushes. Instead, he came to a quieter, slightly uncomfortable realization: It was the accumulation of small daily choices that mattered most. Not one epic training day. But consistency. Steadiness. The choices made when motivation wasn’t there. When no one was watching. Agency, he said, works like that. Not loud. Not dramatic. But constant. The next year he trained differently, not more aggressively, but more consistently. Then race day came. For the first 56 miles, he rode with a peloton. Sheltered from crosswinds. Energy conserved. Strength multiplied simply by not riding alone. There are seasons of life like that, aren’t there? Where we feel buoyed by community, fellowship, shared momentum. And then, somewhere after mile 56, He lost the pack. Suddenly it was just him and the wind. Relentless crosswinds. Heavy legs. That creeping mental fatigue that every endurance athlete (and honestly every human) recognizes. Discouragement started whispering. But he had something taped to his handlebars: a timekeeper. A small device tracking distance and pacing. Quietly telling the truth when exhaustion distorted how things felt. He said it reminded him of the scriptures and words of prophets. Somewhere along that lonely stretch another cyclist caught up to him. “Do you know if we’re on track for ten hours?” The rider didn’t have a timekeeper. The speaker glanced at his numbers. “Yes,” he said. “We’re on schedule.” Even though inside he admitted he didn’t feel strong or confident. So they rode together. Two tired riders pulling for each other. Encouraging each other. Sharing the psychological burden of the wind. They reached the 150-mile checkpoint four minutes ahead of pace. He said he felt incredible. Relief. Confidence. That intoxicating sense of I’m going to do this. and then he hit the wall. Harder than before. His strength seemed to evaporate, doubt surged and quitting suddenly felt reasonable. But this time he didn’t spiral. He lowered his gaze. Focused on the timekeeper. Not the finish line. Not the full remaining distance. Just the next mile. Then the next. Then the next. Eventually, the fog lifted. His legs responded. The despair loosened its grip. He crossed the finish line at 9 hours 54 minutes. Six minutes ahead of his goal. This was an analogy of discipleship. About agency being exercised in thousands of small, unseen decisions. About seasons of strength and seasons of struggle. About losing the peloton. Facing the wind. Hitting the wall. And choosing to keep moving anyway. Because of Jesus Christ, discouragement is never the final verdict. Because of Him, weakness is not the end of the story. Because of Him, we are not defined by the miles that break us, but by the grace that carries us forward. We may ride through headwinds. We may lose the pack. We may hit the wall more than once. But we are never, ever riding alone.







Tuesday, February 3, 2026

The creeds

 

The creedal tradition is no match for this critique because they don’t have a good answer for it. The only way out of the problem of evil is to posit constraints on God and is right to point this out. The creedal view of God leads to atheism because that God either does not exist or is evil. This video nails the problem they can’t solve.


Stephen Fry’s critique of God and divine morality

Here's the transcript from the video, which appears to be an excerpt from an interview with Stephen Fry discussing his views on God and atheism. I've compiled and lightly edited it for clarity and flow based on the subtitles (correcting obvious OCR errors like typos and punctuation while preserving the original wording as closely as possible). The video features Fry speaking passionately, with brief interjections from the interviewer (Gay Byrne).

Interviewer: [Presumed off-screen setup: Suppose you arrived at the pearly gates... what would you say to God?]

Stephen Fry: I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about? How dare you! How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that isn't our fault. It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain? That's what I would say.

Interviewer: And do you think you're going to get in?

Stephen Fry: No, but I wouldn't want to. I wouldn't wanna go on his terms. They're wrong. Now, if I died and it was... it was Pluto, Hades, and if it were the 12 Greek gods, then I would have more truck with it. Because the Greeks were... they didn't pretend not to be human in their appetites, and in their capriciousness, and in their unreasonableness. They didn't present themselves as being all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all-beneficent. Because the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac. Utterly selfish. Totally. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that?

Yes, the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. They eat outwards from the eyes. Why? Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that didn't exist. It's simply not acceptable.

So, atheism isn't just about not believing there is a god, but on the assumption that there is one, what kind of god is he? It's perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, your life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living.



It's true. The world doesn't feel like God IS at the helm of things. If God IS the kind of creator he is described to be. It's impossible for any creator - to be as destructive as the current version is. Whoever was supposed to run things is locked up somewhere.


It's so simple to understand the creedal idea of God is evil. Remove creation out of nothing and insert "we are co-eternal with God" and "God is bound by eternal law" and the problem of evil is fixed.



"Verily, verily, I say unto you, None of you are Christians until you profess a creed that won't exist for another 300 years." - Jesus














The biblical texts cited speak of shared divine attributes (light, life, glory), not explicitly of numerical identity of substance The phrase "one being" is not a biblical term but a post-biblical metaphysical interpretation imposed on the text LDS theology can fully affirm perfect unity, indwelling, and shared divine life between the Father and the Son without collapsing them into a single metaphysical substance


That Creed was a summary of what was already believed. It is a summary of apostolic Christianity which safeguarded the faith and spoke up when it needed to to Define things clearly. You guys believe in polygamous space marriage and fake hieroglyphic texts.










"Verily, verily, I say unto you, None of you are Christians until some guy named Joseph Smith comes along and creates My religion in 1800 years." - Jesus P.s. You’re about to corrupt this message
























The “Mormons aren’t Christians” movement is nothing more than a small but loud corner of American evangelicalism. That argument has now lost. Not faded. Not weakened. Lost. It no longer persuades the public, and it no longer commands moral authority. What remains is noise, produced for self-confirmation rather than persuasion, repeating claims the rest of the country has already moved past. The reason is simple. Americans know what Christians look like. And they know Latter-day Saints. They know Latter-day Saints as people who worship Jesus Christ openly and constantly. Who pray in His name. Who center weekly worship on His atoning sacrifice. Who teach their children to follow Him. Who organize their entire religious life around His resurrection. For almost everyone who is asked, that settles the question. Repeated surveys confirm it. A clear majority of Americans regard Latter-day Saints as Christian, including many who disagree with their theology or would never join the Church. They still recognize Christian faith when they see it. The real fight is not over Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints affirm His divinity, His Atonement, and His literal resurrection without hesitation. That is not where the argument lives. The disagreement turns on something else. When evangelicals say Latter-day Saints aren’t Christian, they are often defending a philosophical definition of God shaped by Greek thought. When Latter-day Saints say they are Christian, they are pointing to something simpler and older: worship of Jesus Christ as the resurrected Savior. You can disagree with that claim. But you cannot honestly say it places Latter-day Saints outside the Christian story altogether. Teachings evangelicals portray as wildly unchristian, including belief in an embodied Father or distinct divine persons, were taught and believed by many early Christians. Scholars have shown these ideas were common in the first centuries, before later church authorities narrowed acceptable belief through frameworks shaped heavily by Greek philosophy. They are not historical oddities. They are part of Christianity’s early record. That is why the heresy label now rings hollow. It is not grounded in how Christianity began, but in how certain groups later decided its boundaries should be enforced. And enforcement is exactly how it feels. The most telling feature of today’s “Mormons aren’t Christian” rhetoric is its irrelevance. It persists in online echo chambers and almost nowhere else. Outside those circles, the verdict is already in. Latter-day Saints are widely recognized as Christians. Their faith is visible, durable, and centered on Jesus Christ. The attempt to deny that reality no longer persuades anyone who is not already committed to denying it. America has spoken. Ancient history is on its side. And momentum points the same way. Latter-day Saints are Christian.

We don’t need to play defense, nor do we need to worry about what folk Christianity thinks about anything. They have closed the heavens to themselves since 90 A.D., and as a result can’t see the light until they let go of the absurd confusion and darkness of their creeds.

Mormons have always and continue to reject the 3 ecumenical creeds because they continue to reject what those creeds teach about Jesus, the Trinity, etc. Which is an obvious reason why Mormons cannot be considered Christians.




The naturalistic Origin of Life is impossible.

  Divinely Designed @DivinelyDesined · 20h The naturalistic Origin of Life is impossible. Abiogenesis requires so many miracles, it makes t...