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 89 by Danmark]

I might have some respect for these YEC proponents if... they just said, "It's a miracle! God did all of this by miracles."

A miracle? Yes, of course. A direct intervention by God upon His creation. Our creation itself is a miracle.

That doesn't mean we cannot seek to ascertain what occurred when the miracle took place.

Dinosaurs lay eggs; and their young are much smaller than adult specimens.

Evolution aboard the Ark??? No idea what you're trying to say...

The greatest miracle, of course, is the direct intervention of God, through His incarnation as the Savior, Jesus Christ, into our space-time dimensionality, so that we can inherit His eternal one.

That is the one that has the utmost, and most vitally important, impact on each of us.

I said nothing about "evolution aboard the Ark."

Mea culpa. Got you confused with another poster.

What I did address were some very specific problems with John Baumgardner's "runaway subduction theories" and his claim that whirlpools saved the dinosaur's. Do you have a specific rebuttal for the problems raised in his theories?

No -- not a specific one.

I will confess that I do not have the expertise in geophysics to perform my own personal peer review of his work. Nor in astrophysics, to do the same with the various Big Bang models. Nor in molecular biology, to unravel for myself whether the empty claims routinely paraded as the new "proof" of m2m mechanisms (until -- "whoops -- no, that doesn't actually work...") are specious.

I, being a layman, must rely on the authority of experts in those areas -- just as I do whenever I take a seat on an airplane.

I found the rebuttal very interesting. And a perfect example of how science should work. "Here is my hypothesis..."; "here are some problems with your hypothesis".

Let's look at them. Baumgardner's proposal may well prove to be unworkable. Or, as in the case with many promising theories, it may be a matter of "it could not have happened that way, UNLESS..." x, y, and/or z.

"Nothing is more tragic than the slaying of an elegant theory by an ugly fact".

I remind you -- that statement sums up the m2m myth.

Are there problems with Baumgardner's proposal, that must be worked out before it can be accepted or rejected? I should think so. That neither surprises nor troubles me.

But they are nothing compared to the problems involved with the lack of mutations, or other natural processes, that can cause an increase in information within the genome, of the order needed to climb from a microbe to a man, whether given a billion years, or 10 x 10 x 10 billion years. Blood simply does not come from a turnip, no matter how long you wait.

What you (generally -- those who believe "nothing + time + chance = everything") and I (generally -- theists, who believe God exists outside the finite universe that He created) both are in need of is direct Divine intervention to make what we believe hold together.

Microbes certainly did not become men, absent some transcendent, guiding force (as someone said "who said anything about evolution being random?").

However, the admission of that transcendent, guiding force opens other possibilities. Those who are interested in pursuing truth (and not just their careers) must be courageous in that pursuit. The "community" of scientists, like all human associations, is imperfect -- subject to the same clique-ishness, envy, and herd mentality that any other is. "Science" may be objective, but scientists themselves most certainly aren't.

So -- the posts on this thread indicate that neither you, nor any other respondent, has any familiarity with the claims and proposals made by the growing number of scientists who have rejected the empty logic of "we must assume no God", for the bedrock of God's word as foundational to their epistemological worldview.

If you want to continue basing your belief about the origins and history of the world (and the consequences of those beliefs, in terms of the ontology which follows from it) on the sound of "one hand clapping" -- that is your own affair.

Here's what I will do.

I will take as my starting position, not the agnostic "we don't know" (and no evidence will ever be sufficient to change our position); but "I believe the Bible to be a transmission from outside our time domain; which conveys information from the only witness to the event of creation; and spiritual inspiration in guiding the writings of history subsequent to that event."

And see which position best corresponds to the facts and evidence before us.

The beauty of it is, the experts that I turn to -- who have PhDs from secular universities; and yard-long accomplishments in their field of expertise, MUST be expertly aware of the arguments (and that is all they are; inferences -- there is no proof of their claims, quite the opposite) made by m2m proponents, in order to rebut them.

So it's a "two-fer".

I appreciate a good bargain.

From my perspective, the time dilation and other factors involved with "the stretching of the heavens", and the ubiquitous evidence for the flood of Noah, are sufficient to confirm my belief that a man rose from the dead on a Sunday after Passover, 2,000 years ago, validating His claim to be the embodiment of the creator who spoke the Cosmos into existence, roughly 4,000 years prior.

If they are not for you -- I have no choice but to live with that.

Do you still want to discuss the Christianity--Islam thing?

[KenRU]

From my perspective, the time dilation and other factors involved with "the stretching of the heavens", and the ubiquitous evidence for the flood of Noah, are sufficient to confirm my belief that a man rose from the dead on a Sunday after Passover, 2,000 years ago, validating His claim to be the embodiment of the creator who spoke the Cosmos into existence, roughly 4,000 years prior.

Just out of curiosity, if evolution is not supported by the evidence (as you seem to indicate) then how do account for the fact that not one fossil has ever been found/dated out of the expected (and predicted by evolutionary theory) time period?

It should be quite easy to prove evolutionary theory incorrect by finding just one fossil located and dated out of place. Yet this has NEVER happened.

How do you account for this?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 95:

It should be quite easy to prove evolutionary theory incorrect by finding just one fossil located and dated out of place. Yet this has NEVER happened.

A very important point, and one that allows us to make a reasoned inference from observing small changes, and extrapolating that back through time.

Aside:

"Molecules to man" is exactly what we must conclude, when we're made out of 'em.

[Volbrigade]

From Post 95:

It should be quite easy to prove evolutionary theory incorrect by finding just one fossil located and dated out of place. Yet this has NEVER happened.

A very important point, and one that allows us to make a reasoned inference from observing small changes, and extrapolating that back through time.

Aside:

"Molecules to man" is exactly what we must conclude, when we're made out of 'em.

I challenge the legitimacy of the claim, Ken.

Fossils can never be "out of sequence", because whatever sequence they are found in, MUST be the "right" (m2m evolutionary sequence), by definition.

Of course, ad hoc explanations, and revisions of that sequence to meet the evidence, are de rigueur.

Here's a look at the issue, from the "other side", if you're interested:

http://creation.com/fossils-out-of-order

http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place

Joey --

that's a cute catchphrase, but again -- nothing I'd be willing to bet my immortal soul on.

We're made out of molecules, alright.

Including a code, consisting of billions of "letters" of 'em (arranged in specific proteins, composed of specific amino acids, in a specific arrangement).

This code contains the specific instructions (design) and information for you; me, and every other living organism on earth.

Question:

Where did the specificity come from?

Where did the design come from?

Where did the information come from?

From the same place the molecules themselves (and the atoms they are composed of {bonus -- starting with hydrogen and oxygen, according to the account } ) came from, is what we must conclude, when the Creator made them.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 97:

...

"Molecules to man" is exactly what we must conclude, when we're made out of 'em.

that's a cute catchphrase, but again -- nothing I'd be willing to bet my immortal soul on.

Indicative of one who'd be unwilling to accept any finding that goes against his religious training. Compounded by repeated links within the thread to a group of folks who declare the bible to trump what is observed.

Pascal's Wager has no place in science.

Where have you established you have an "immortal soul"?

We're made out of molecules, alright.

Including a code, consisting of billions of "letters" of 'em (arranged in specific proteins, composed of specific amino acids, in a specific arrangement).

This code contains the specific instructions (design) and information for you; me, and every other living organism on earth.

Things act according to their properties.

We only see "code" or "design" in nature as concepts, and maybe useful terms.

What we see is that molecules combine to create new stuff. We then extrapolate from that how it is we're made of molecules, sometimes there's errors in replication, and how it's logical to conclude that evolution occurs across time.

Where did the specificity come from?

Things act according to their properties. As humans, our replication is dependent on that fact. We observe errors in this replication, and conclude evolution occurs.

Where did the design come from?

See above.

Where did the information come from?

See above the see above up above.

From the same place the molecules themselves (and the atoms they are composed of {bonus -- starting with hydrogen and oxygen, according to the account Wink } ) came from, is what we must conclude, when the Creator made them.

Your creator hypothesis is flawed, in that the mind is a product of the physical. From what physical stuff could the mind of this creator be composed of, if this creator is what made the physical?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 97 by Volbrigade]

Fossils can never be "out of sequence", because whatever sequence they are found in, MUST be the "right" (m2m evolutionary sequence), by definition.

Patently false, as a matter of fact! Sure, if all we did was dig something up and then declare it's the 'right way' to be found, then you'd have some bearing on this.

But science is about making PREDICTIONS. Using the existing model of evolutionary theory, we apply it to anthropology and predict locations and strata in which we'll expect to find particular fossils. Lo and behold, we find them, and never out of place either.

[FarWanderer]

Question:

Where did the specificity come from?

Where did the design come from?

Where did the information come from?

These are all trivial questions unless these words refer to distinguishable things.

What isn't specific?

What isn't designed?

What isn't information?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 98 by JoeyKnothead]

Volbrigade wrote:

From the same place the molecules themselves (and the atoms they are composed of {bonus -- starting with hydrogen and oxygen, according to the account Wink } ) came from, is what we must conclude, when the Creator made them.

Your creator hypothesis is flawed, in that the mind is a product of the physical.

Now, Joey, I get hit with the "unsupported claim" thingy all the time.

But THAT, my friend, is one big ol' unsupported claim.

From what physical stuff could the mind of this creator be composed of, if this creator is what made the physical?

That's pretty good.

I will concede this, in the interest of peace and good will:

if there are no such things as "mind", "soul", and/or "spirit"; then theism is in ruins, and there is no point in talking about an extra-terrestrial origin of the Bible.

I would just have to get back in the cart with you atheo-materialist-Whateverists, for the dreary slog between sperm and egg "acting according to their properties", and the long dirt nap, when the mind's physical source "acts according to its properties", by decomposing into constituent molecules and elements.

With no promise or hope of meaning or purpose -- or even any evidence that such exists -- in between.

Whee.

But you know what?

My mind doesn't think that's the way it is. My soul feels that my mind is right about that; and my spirit confirms that my mind is right.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 101:

Now, Joey, I get hit with the "unsupported claim" thingy all the time.

But THAT, my friend, is one big ol' unsupported claim.

We can test my notion every time someone has brain damage, and we observe the effects thereof. We can also introduce drugs or other outside sources. This is hardly unsettled science.

Granted, there's the issue of "artificial intelligence", where there's a "silicon mind". My position is still maintained though, that the mind is a product of the physical.

From what physical stuff could the mind of this creator be composed of, if this creator is what made the physical?

That's pretty good.

I will concede this, in the interest of peace and good will:

if there are no such things as "mind", "soul", and/or "spirit"; then theism is in ruins, and there is no point in talking about an extra-terrestrial origin of the Bible.

I'll take that as you're willing to consider opposing notions (not that you never did, only now we have some data to put t'wards it).

Getting at that last bit...

if there are no such things as "mind", "soul", and/or "spirit"; then theism is in ruins, and there is no point in talking about an extra-terrestrial origin of the Bible.

I'm not so keen to say that upon my data all theism is somehow defunct. "God's magical", after all, is a kinda theism.

The data we have, here on earth, is that sentience is a product of the brain, of the physical. But, as a theist, I could, with some rationality, propose a God whose very essence is "sentience", only he saw fit that it is, none of us'll ever be sentient without we have a physical brain. Theism lives.

I don't find this notion very profitable though, because it doesn't comport with our observations. In trying to do science, in trying to think rationally, we're left with what we can observe, and test. Repeatedly.

As we enter the realm of science, we don't get to say, "Well I ain't proud about that, so it's wrong". We're bound by the principles of science to follow the facts, and to present the most reasonable, rational conclusions. The problem comes with folks such as Creation.com, that they state before the science that all their conclusions must comport with what the bible tells them. Them. Not what it tells any other Christian, but what they think it says. To include a requirement that anyone who works for them must also ascribe to their a priori beliefs. That ain't science.

I would just have to get back in the cart with you atheo-materialist-Whateverists, for the dreary slog between sperm and egg "acting according to their properties", and the long dirt nap, when the mind's physical source "acts according to its properties", by decomposing into constituent molecules and elements.

That you consider it a "dreary slog" is, I contend, evidence of an emotion based take on things.

I see nothing wrong with thinking my life may endure forever. I find it aspirational and motivational. But in the end, emotions should never define our science.

With no promise or hope of meaning or purpose -- or even any evidence that such exists -- in between.

I don't need anyone's promises to find meaning or purpose in my life, other'n to have the pretty thing promise she'll keep on a-cookin' long as it is, I keep the house free of any bugs that make her holler and run out of the kitchen, where it is, she can't hold up her promise to cook. I'm not trying to be sexist there, only that's how we sorted it all out, for it is, if I'm doin' the cookin', it might as well be bugs we eat.

What if all the data we have, what if there's undeniable, heck, photographic evidence there's a god up there, and he wants us all to kill one another? Are you prepared to go on a murderous rampage in order to fulfill your "meaning", or "purpose"?

You're tacking a philosophy onto science that doesn't apply to doing science.

My mind doesn't think that's the way it is. My soul feels that my mind is right about that; and my spirit confirms that my mind is right.

Then show us you have a "soul". Show us that "soul" is correct. Show us you have a "spirit". Show us that "spirit" is correct.

The ToE, is a testament to the rational. It's a testament to doing science. Granted, its "ultimate claim" is an inference, I'm totally with that. My position is that it's the most rational, reasoned inference to be had.

[FarWanderer]

With no promise or hope of meaning or purpose.

Where's the meaning or purpose to be found in Christianity? I don't see it as providing meaning at all.

Meaning is found in choice. We do not need a "promise" or "hope" of meaning. You either have choice- and therefore meaning- or you don't.

And it's not as though Christianity is necessary for us to have choice. All you need to believe in is free will.