Two potential creation scenarios

[agnosticatheist]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum.

[1213]

...

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest? ...

Actually I think it is possible that species are defined now differently than in ancient time. For example nowadays we have many species of bears, but in the past there could have been only one species of bears and all different kind of bears would have been counted as bears. Similarly as there were according to the story 8 people that probably were quite similar after the great flood, but now we have for example different colored people. If people would be just animals, “black� and “white� people could be called different species, because species is used quite lightly nowadays in other animals that can interbreed.

So, if people have become as varied as we can now see, I think same could have happened with other species also. Therefore it is really possible that some kind of “evolution� is possible with creation and the Bible story. And actually it seems the most probably solution, because there were just 8 people and now we have modern variety of people.

This is why, if we see things that may look like evolution (I would rather say devolution), it can be true in some way and it certainly do not make God dishonest.

I think the whole idea of evolution and that all species have developed without God is just made up story for those who don’t want to believe that God is real. It is just an excuse for those who try to shut off God.

[bluethread]

I think the whole idea of evolution and that all species have developed without God is just made up story for those who don’t want to believe that God is real. It is just an excuse for those who try to shut off God.

I wouldn't go that far. I think, for most, it is starting from an empirical presumption. If what is replicable using my five senses is all there is, then, being an introspective and inquisitive being, I would take the pieces that I have to work with and go with what best fit the premise. From that point of view, a mystic, theist or atheist, is just someone who presumes that what can not be explained has an explanation beyond one's five senses.

That said, the premise of this thread is Christian mysticism, as judged by the conclusions of scientific empiricism. It is not surprising that there is a disconnect. There is a similar disconnect between atheistic mysticism and scientific empiricism. The conflict is in the difference between empiricism and mysticism, not the difference between Christianity and scientific empiricism. The former are premises and the later are specific philosophies that follow from those separate premises.

[McCulloch]

Actually I think it is possible that species are defined now differently than in ancient time. For example nowadays we have many species of bears, but in the past there could have been only one species of bears and all different kind of bears would have been counted as bears. Similarly as there were according to the story 8 people that probably were quite similar after the great flood, but now we have for example different colored people. If people would be just animals, “black� and “white� people could be called different species, because species is used quite lightly nowadays in other animals that can interbreed.

Maybe by some people, but not by biologists. The different races of humanity are more analogous to different breeds of domesticated animals not species. White human is not considered a species by biologists in the same way that angora is not considered a species of cat. The various species of bear do not currently interbreed, but according to evolution, they all came from a common ancestor. The difference between how real biologists see it and how creationists see it is this. Real biologists look at the rate of mutations, the biochemistry of DNA, the fossil record as compared with the geological record and conclude based on real evidence that the common ancestor to the bears existed about 18 million years ago. Creationists consult a book of myths and conclude that the common ancestor to all the bears must have existed less than ten thousand years ago. Paradoxically, the creationists who say that they deny evolution, require that evolution happens at a rate significantly faster than any evolutionary biologist would say is possible based on available evidence.

I think the whole idea of evolution and that all species have developed without God is just made up story for those who don’t want to believe that God is real. It is just an excuse for those who try to shut off God.

I think that the whole idea of rapid evolution of species within kind since the flood is just a made up story for those who do not want to give up believing an ancient creation myth for evidence based science.

[agnosticatheist]

That said, the premise of this thread is Christian mysticism, as judged by the conclusions of scientific empiricism.

How is that?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 5 by agnosticatheist]

You did set the premises yourself. And both premises set are to be cohesively involved in the discussion without confirming their truthfulness using scientific empiricism. So having the tone of the discussion be Christian mysticism seems apt for conducting any debate.

[agnosticatheist]

[Replying to post 5 by agnosticatheist]

You did set the premises yourself. And both premises set are to be cohesively involved in the discussion without confirming their truthfulness using scientific empiricism. So having the tone of the discussion be Christian mysticism seems apt for conducting any debate.

Why? Both creation scenarios I presented are compatible with mainstream Christianity, and in fact, scenario one is a fairly accurate description of mainstream Christianity's version of how God created lifeforms on Earth.

[Clownboat]

I think the whole idea of evolution and that all species have developed without God is just made up story for those who don’t want to believe that God is real. It is just an excuse for those who try to shut off God.

I think the whole idea of parents giving presents to their children at Christmas is just a made up idea for those who don't want to believe that Santa is real.

I can say silly things too.

How do we shut off god?

[SailingCyclops]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

If we assume an absurdity (those particular premises' you list being true) as the basis of our argument/debate, then ANY conclusions based on that argument must be equally absurd.

How is a debate destined to end in absurd conclusions, a productive use of energy? Just asking.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 9 by SailingCyclops]
Yup, when your starting assumptions are absurd on the face of it how can one expect to reach a logical conclusion?