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.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 162 by FarWanderer]

It's not my fault if you mischaracterize your own religion.

You said, quote, "[Adam's sin] is necessary so that Redemption could likewise take place through the office of one Man, Jesus Christ"

Actually, in the interest of accuracy, allow me to paste the full quote:

"The Biblical account that I accept as revealed, propositional truth from the Creator Himself (more below) says that sin and death entered the world through one man's -- Adam's -- disobedience (in concert with the deception of Eve), and spread, genetically, throughout the entire human race. That is necessary so that Redemption could likewise take place through the office of one Man, Jesus Christ."

"So that" implies intention.

Not quite.

It expresses -- not implies -- foreknowledge.

We must face the possibility that in a temporary environment consisting of matter, that in order for "good" to exist, there is an attendant possibility of "evil". That the swinging of my fist, in exercise of my free will, may coincide with its landing on your nose. That there are actions, and consequences -- I'm sure you'll agree with at least that last phrase; that's ALL there is, according to the tenets of m2m materialism.

By facing that possibility, there is the further possibility of arriving at an awareness of reality -- the reality that the denial of God is an attempted escape from.

The comparison of our shared reality and existence, with a computer program (game) is an intriguing one. There is a categorical difference, however, that is itself instructive.

In the analogy, the "world" of the computer game is the product of a finite mind, which exists in a reality that is "hyperdimensional" to the game.

Likewise, our 4D reality is the product of an infinite mind, which exists in a reality that is "hyperdimensional" to our shared one.

In both cases, the creator of the game establishes the rules of the game, and guides the narrative. The analogy breaks down at the point of the computer programmer's capability to program his characters to exercise free will, or to experience or express love.

Do you have any reason for why God would not reveal himself via a video game? I'm completely serious.

More silliness -- but a valid (though basic and simplistic) question, at heart. "Why doesn't God just show Himself to us, in a manner that would remove any doubt of His existence?"

Because then there would be no reason, or room, for faith.

Of course, he has revealed Himself through His creation, His revealed word, and His work on the Cross, which precipitated the work of His Holy Spirit in the world -- the only thing that makes our human experience as bearable as it is; the events of the 20th century and beyond providing ample evidence of the consequences of rejecting Him.

And don't worry -- He WILL reveal Himself in "power and great glory". I respectfully suggest that you may want to settle your differences with Him before He does.

Well, the presupposition is "we know that the God of the Bible doesn't exist...".

You continue to start your posts with misstatements or fallacies.

Science makes no claim that "the God of the Bible doesn't exist." Science does not deal with non falsifiable claims. The most science can say about deities is that we have no evidence of a god.

I will gallantly allow you to expound on the difference between the two assertions.

A good example comes from geology, where earth quakes and volcanoes have long persuaded geologists that catastrophic change can occur. The geology in the Pacific NW is another example, with ice dams periodically breaking in Montana, causing huge walls of water moving as fast as 80mph down the Columbia River gorge, carving in minutes what might otherwise take centuries.

Thank you, Danmark, for providing an understanding -- limited (purposely -- er, by design? Of your own free will? -- as it may be) of the kinds of forces at play during a weeks-long episode of global seismic and continental catastrophism, during which the rate of plate tectonic drift may have achieved a speed a billion times faster than it is today.

It's as if you are not aware of the Mayans, Aztecs, American Indians and Aboriginals (for example).

All these people that you claim have "free will" to reject a god that they never new existed because they were also inventing their own god concepts at the time.

They sure had to crawl all over that cross they would have known nothing about.

This is always a troubling question, every time it comes up.

And it comes up every time. The only surprise is that it took so long.

You have to remember -- they might not know, or "have known", God:

but He certainly knows, and knew, them. Just as He does you.

This is a huge area of study and exposition, and I'm willing to enter into it, if you are.

I'll premise my view on two important factors:

Paul says we are all "without excuse" (Romans 1:17, and following).

But the verses that are my go-to on this matter are 2 Peter 3:8-10 ("the Lord is not willing that any should perish");

and John 18:37, wherein Jesus says "everyone who is of the truth heareth my voice."

The "enthnocentrism" referred to would entail that pagan peoples could neither ascertain the need for a creator, from their observation of nature; nor possess a desire for ultimate truth that surpasses the scope or their endarkened post-Babel paganism.

That is yet another manifestation of an epistemological bias, leading to tragic error.

I would say that theirs is one of ignorance; while the error of the modern materialist pagan is one of deliberate defiance --

but I'm not sure that statement might not stretch the boundaries of civility -- as many that have been directed at my beliefs have.

[Clownboat]

It's as if you are not aware of the Mayans, Aztecs, American Indians and Aboriginals (for example).

All these people that you claim have "free will" to reject a god that they never new existed because they were also inventing their own god concepts at the time.

They sure had to crawl all over that cross they would have known nothing about.

This is always a troubling question, every time it comes up.

And it comes up every time. The only surprise is that it took so long.

You have to remember -- they might not know, or "have known", God:

but He certainly knows, and knew, them. Just as He does you.

This is a huge area of study and exposition, and I'm willing to enter into it, if you are.

I'll premise my view on two important factors:

Paul says we are all "without excuse" (Romans 1:17, and following).

But the verses that are my go-to on this matter are 2 Peter 3:8-10 ("the Lord is not willing that any should perish");

and John 18:37, wherein Jesus says "everyone who is of the truth heareth my voice."

The "enthnocentrism" referred to would entail that pagan peoples could neither ascertain the need for a creator, from their observation of nature; nor possess a desire for ultimate truth that surpasses the scope or their endarkened post-Babel paganism.

That is yet another manifestation of an epistemological bias, leading to tragic error.

I would say that theirs is one of ignorance; while the error of the modern materialist pagan is one of deliberate defiance --

but I'm not sure that statement might not stretch the boundaries of civility -- as many that have been directed at my beliefs have.

I can see that this would be troubling to you, so much so that you forgot to evidence your claim that the Mayans, Aztecs and Aboriginals knew about this person you claim was sacrificed to a god concept in order for us to be forgive for Adam and Eve eating from a tree they should not have eaten from.

You must do better than quoting from this very same book that also makes the claim about the bad fruit and talking snake.

You make a claim that I personally find ridiculous (to each their own right?), then your attempt to evidence said claim is more quoting from the very same book the original ridiculous claim comes from.

It's means nothing to me to state "they are without excuse" when my knowledge of the world tells me that they did have an excuse. That excuse is the seeming fact that they knew nothing of this humans sacrifice to a god that you hold so dear. On top of it all, some of these cultures had no issue with sacrificing humans.

For me, humans sacrifice to god concepts is enough of a reason to reject religious tales, but for the Mayans and Aztecs, this would not have been so off putting.

Questions. What is it that you have done in this life that makes the idea of human sacrifice to a god concept justifiable in order to feel better (or not be punished) about whatever it is you have done? Have we lived that much different of lives? I'm a good man I believe, and no one should have to be sacrificed to a god for any of my actions.

[Danmark]

Thank you, Danmark, for providing an understanding ... of the kinds of forces at play during a weeks-long episode of global seismic and continental catastrophism, during which the rate of plate tectonic drift may have achieved a speed a billion times faster than it is today.

Jumping from ice dam's breaking and volcanoes erupting to tectonic plate movement is absurd. You have no basis for suggesting that one implies the other. Without demonstrating how this happens, you are engaging in magical thinking... actually just speculation without foundation. You might as well say, "fairies did it."

The geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics:
Island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, indicate that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting "hot spots." Radiometric dating and relative amounts of erosion both indicate that the older islands are very much older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require.
Catastrophic plate tectonics says that all ocean floor should be essentially the same age. But both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old.
As sea-floor basalt cools, it becomes denser and sinks. The elevation of sea floors is consistent with cooling appropriate for its age, assuming gradual spreading.
Guyots are flat-topped underwater mountains. The tops were eroded flat from a long time at the ocean surface, and they sank with the sea floor. Catastrophic tectonics does not allow enough time for the sea mountain to form, erode, and sink.
Runaway subduction does not account for continent-continent collisions, such as between India and the Eurasian plate.

Catastrophic plate tectonics has no plausible mechanism. In particular, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle, the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under conventional physics.

Conventional plate tectonics accounts for the evidence already and does a much better job of it. It explains innumerable details that catastrophic plate tectonics cannot, such as why there is gold in California, silver in Nevada, salt flats in Utah, and coal in Pennsylvania (McPhee 1998). It requires no extraordinary mechanisms to do so. Catastrophic plate tectonics would be a giant step backwards in the progress of science.#

Continental movement at the speed required by "shock dynamics" [a theory suggested by YEC's and not science, would tear the world apart. You do realize, don't you, that the Earth's thin crust floats on a sea of molten rock. http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/ ... tonics.htm

For YEC theory to work, virtually all the of science needs to be rejected. Radio metric dating, evolution, but ... the list is too long so I'll just give the major categories:
'Creationism is fundamentally incompatible with large swathes of science. To be completely honest, you pretty much need to willfully ignore the entirety of science, down to the level of applying basic logic to the world; but if "all of them" is too broad and/or vague for you:

1 Physics
2 Chemistry
3 Biology
4 Mathematics
5 Planetary science
6 Measurement
7 Humanities
....
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Branches_o ... reationism

The "enthnocentrism" referred to would entail that pagan peoples could neither ascertain the need for a creator, from their observation of nature; nor possess a desire for ultimate truth that surpasses the scope or their endarkened post-Babel paganism.
That is yet another manifestation of an epistemological bias, leading to tragic error.

None of this makes the least bit of sense to me. You haven't demonstrated you know anything about ethnocentrism. Let me define in case you truly do not know:
Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture. Ethnocentric individuals judge other groups relative to their own ethnic group or culture, especially with concern for language, behavior, customs, and religion.*
The error you continually fall into is your assumption that your own interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition is THE standard by which other cultures and religions should be judged.
The Aztecs and Mayans would be as equally correct (or incorrect) in judging your beliefs by their standards as you are in making YOUR beliefs the standard.
I suggest you take at least an introductory course in my own undergraduate major field of study: anthropology.

___________________________
*Wikipedia
#http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 171 by Clownboat]

For me, humans sacrifice to god concepts is enough of a reason to reject religious tales, but for the Mayans and Aztecs, this would not have been so off putting.

Our western, materialistic, "scientific" culture is hardly innocent on that count.

Since 1973, over 50 million humans have been "sacrificed" at the alter of sexual permissiveness, in the USA alone. The justification for this slaughter has been, at heart, that there is no God to bestow upon these lives value and and worth; nor to endow them with inalienable rights.

Those same criteria apply to each of us, under the parameters of m2m evolutionism.

Why should you be upset that bags of chemicals sacrifice other bags of chemicals to non-existent "gods"? They are merely doing what they are determined to do, by the same evolutionary circumstances and conditions that turned microbes into men.

"It's all good", bro.

FYI -- the sacrificial system put in place in anticipation of the one accomplished on Calvary, was of animals, not humans. Judeo-Christianity insists on marking the difference, you see.

The sacrifices were a picture of the one to be made by Jesus; who was both a man, and the "very God of very God". And it perfectly fulfilled the atonement of sacrifice: the innocent for the guilty. Notice that even the Jews no longer engage in it, since the destruction of their Temple -- just as Jesus predicted. And Christians, of course, have no need of it any longer.

I am aware none of this means anything to you. That is not my affair.

You ask "what have I ('you') done that is so bad?"

The answer will be meaningless to you. But that does not mean it does not have meaning.

I have participated in the original sin of rejecting the Creator; of putting myself on the first order of magnitude in place of Him. That doesn't sound so bad, does it?

But it is the sin from which all others follow. Only by being justified with God can we overcome this inherent sin nature. Jesus provides that justification. For free. You don't even have to do anything: in fact, you can't. He did it all.

Besides -- from a m2m perspective, the whole concept of "good" and "bad", relative to human behavior, is a parasite on the "natural law" which is a shadow of God's Law; and of the Judeo-Christian ethos which has informed Western society (and through it, the world) for 2 millennia.

There is no "scientific" explanation for why anyone should do, or refrain from doing, anything.

Prove, scientifically, that you have any intrinsic value. Or that murder is anything other than one bag of chemicals doing something to another.

Dan--

It's good to see Baumgardner's theory getting attention from other scientists. Much research is needed to better understand the mechanisms associated with CPT, to either verify its validity, or to modify or reject it in search of more accurate models.

Objections from one or two scientists do not constitute a falsification of the theory, however.

Oh -- and I am well versed in the cultural relativism associated with the study of Anthropology, as undertaken by those with an m2m bias.

It has no more validity than the m2m hoax itself does.

[Danmark]

It's good to see Baumgardner's theory getting attention from other scientists.
....
Oh -- and I am well versed in the cultural relativism associated with the study of Anthropology, as undertaken by those with an m2m bias.

It has no more validity than the m2m hoax itself does.

Baumgardner's theory is complete rubbish, so much so that it is not part of any discussion in any geology journal I am aware of.

Your continued ridiculous claim that evolution does not include homo sapiens and that we have a common ancestor with microbes has no support anywhere outside of the YEC community. Calling it m2m is a pejorative oversimplification. To call something that is agree to be valid by 99.85% of life and earth sciences a "hoax" only brings discredit on yourself. It is clear you wish to ignore any fact or piece of evidence from the mountain of it that verifies evolution over billions of years. Since you have yet to make a single valid argument, nor provide a single objective source to support your claims, I don't see any value in continuing playing Arthur to the Black Knight of YEC.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 166 by Danmark]

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised you aren't following me. It is the most deep-rooted presupposition we have about the world.

Presuppositions are not bad things, necessarily.

When I speak of "the uniformity of nature", you can imagine I am talking of uniformitarianism, but taken to its logical conclusion, applied to every instance of pattern we (think we) observe.

When we observe a pattern, what is our justification for believing the pattern will continue? You may want answer this question with an appeal to how believing in patterns has worked for us in the past, but that itself is an appeal to another pattern.

And without the presupposition that patterns in nature form a basis to predict future events, science is impossible.

[FarWanderer]

"So that" implies intention.

Not quite.

It expresses -- not implies -- foreknowledge.

Not to me, and, by my understanding, not to most English-speaking people.

Do you have any reason for why God would not reveal himself via a video game? I'm completely serious.

More silliness -- but a valid (though basic and simplistic) question, at heart. "Why doesn't God just show Himself to us, in a manner that would remove any doubt of His existence?"

That's completely not my question. What's absurd about revelation through a video game rather than a book or vision?

And don't worry -- He WILL reveal Himself in "power and great glory". I respectfully suggest that you may want to settle your differences with Him before He does.

I don't know whether I should be disgusted or be amused that you add a winky to your warning of eternal conscious torture.

I can only imagine, only hope, this is all a game to you.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 174 by Danmark]

I appreciate your comments. I, too, have come to the conclusion there is no reason to continue the exchange.

I'm glad you recognize m2m as a pejorative, for a feeble idea the is immanently worthy of such treatment.

It boils down to this: "we think those rocks are very old. We think that, because they have been unchanged for a long time -- generations -- and therefore, they must have formed by very, very slow processes.

The fossils we find in those rocks, which are preserved as if they were encased in wet concrete (hmmm... I wonder if -- nah), were formed slowly, too -- because that's the only way they could've formed, since they're in the rocks, which formed slowly.

How old do we think the rocks are? REAL old. Millions, maybe billions of years old. As old as they need to be, because we believe the fossils tell the story of how microbes gradually morphed into men. And we infer, from the rate of change we observe, that happens VERY slowly -- it must, in fact, because there has been no change at all in the 4,000 years or so of recorded history. And there are no proven mechanism by which it could occur -- though the fact that there are both microbes and men today is sufficient proof that it did.

We can tell how old the rocks are by measuring the radio isotopes in them; and after setting basic measurements, based on how old we THINK they must be, we can figure ages based on those measurements."

This is the circular reasoning we are dealing with. Now, just because one's thinking travels in a circle, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't trace a path that corresponds to the facts.

After all -- what other alternative is there?

Well, how about this one:

Our universe, which is bounded in terms of both space and time, was set into existence by an entity that is not so bounded, and who has always existed.

And He undertook to make creatures that are capable of love; and love, by definition, requires free will and choice.

But it is not possible to have free will without the freedom, and possibility, of choosing badly.

Which the creature did.

But the creator had a plan in place from before the creation of the creature, and the temporary environment he was placed in. And that plan involved a redemption of both that would be BETTER than before the creature misused His free will.

And the Creator imparted a message system that provides a record of the entire saga, which reads as a great, sweeping drama.

And everywhere we look, we see verification and validation of that message system as being propositional truth.

Isn't that better than an ad hoc story about microbes morphing into men, which provides no meaning or purpose for anything?

[Nobelx]

[Replying to post 177 by Volbrigade]

Hello Volbrigade, I am new here but have followed part of the discussion and have some questions.

After all -- what other alternative is there?

Well, how about this one: ....

Yes, this may be an alternative even if I personally don't think it is probable.

We can tell how old the rocks are by measuring the radio isotopes in them; and after setting basic measurements, based on how old we THINK they must be, we can figure ages based on those measurements."

This is the circular reasoning we are dealing with. Now, just because one's thinking travels in a circle, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't trace a path that corresponds to the facts.

Do you really think that this is the way science has determined the age of the earth? From where did you get that information?

There are hundreds of different methods to determine the age of physical entities; methods that are independent of each other and that work together and give a coherent picture of the age of almost anything, from the universe itself down to fossils and DNA. For instance, there are methods to determine the age of the sun. These methods give an age of the sun that is close to the estimated age of earth. And the estimations of the age of the sun certainly don't include any investigation of earthly rocks.

You seem to be interested if the questions about the creation of the world. Why don't you inform you better of the position and methods of natural science? There is lot of information on Wikipedia for instance.

I am not certain what you mean by "m2m" in this context and why it is a hoax.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to Nobelx]

By "m2m" he's referring to "molecules to man" evolution.

As for why it's a hoax, well, good luck.