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.

[Elijah John]

You're kidding, right? I mean -- you've got to be kidding.

How can anyone believe that? Thank God, there are many brilliant people who don't -- and offer compelling reasons they don't; as well as a compelling alternative to that belief.

As easy as it is to demonstrate evolution, it is even easier to disprove 'Young Earth'

Piffle. What nerve it takes to accuse someone of "unsubstantiated claims", and then to turn around and write such a sentence.

"growth of coral"... "continental drift..."

http://creation.com/ancient-coral

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf

I'm a case in point that refutes your "years of indoctrination" claim...

Evolution does not claim microbes turned into men...

Well, hallelujah! It took you long enough -- why didn't you say this earlier?

Moderator Warning


Please resist the urge to resort to sarcasm and incivility such as in the lines above. They do nothing to enhance the debate.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 111 by Danmark]

No, Dan. Science DOES support the Biblical account. It is the myth that microbes became men -- a patent impossibility -- for which the data must be tortured until it confesses.

Your unfriendly post merely confirms my #110, which I urge you reread serially at your leisure.

If you want to look at the inkblot of the evidence -- uh, I should stipulate, I suppose, scientific evidence -- and see nothing but interactions of matter, randomness, and the exclusion of a spiritual metacosm outside of our limited time domain --

it is possible to come to that conclusion.

What's truly amazing, fascinating, astounding, is that the same evidence also supports the opposite conclusion. Again -- reminiscent of the particle-wave duality.

Interesting.

But only one conclusion is faithful to the truth.

And the Truth is that the tomb was empty; and that Jesus has returned to the Father from whom He is begotten; and will return "in Power and Great glory."

That truth validates the Biblical account of creation and origins.

And if it doesn't -- then what kind of germ our earliest ancestor was is not only of limited interest; irrelevant to how we live our lives as a bag of animated chemicals (other than providing the broad foundation for the reality that there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to it) --

but is the least of our troubles.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 113:

...
And the Truth is that the tomb was empty

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

and that Jesus has returned to the Father

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

from whom He is begotten

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

and will return

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

in Power and Great glory

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 113 by Volbrigade]

This is just contradiction, not argument. When you stated 'it depends on your epistemology' you signalled a change from the scientific method. You have not responded to that issue. What do you mean by your statement, ''it depends on your epistemology?'

Meanwhile, science fully agrees that men descended from microbes.

Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors. But before about two billion years ago, human ancestors branched off.

This new group, called eukaryotes, also gave rise to other animals, plants, fungi and protozoans.
....
Dr. Lynch dismisses claims by creationists that complexity in nature could not be produced by evolution, only by a designer.

"In fact, a good chunk of what evolutionary biologists study is why things are so poorly designed," he said. "If we needed a bigger genome, there would be a brighter way to build it."
_ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/scien ... .html?_r=0

This is one of the greatest reasons for arguing against "intelligent design;" the poor design involved in many organisms.

Why would an intelligent designer put nipples on men?
Why would he add a vermiform appendix to the human large bowel?
Not only is this vestigal organ essentially functionless in modern man, it provides a site for infection and cancer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 113 by Volbrigade]

This is just contradiction, not argument. When you stated 'it depends on your epistemology' you signalled a change from the scientific method. You have not responded to that issue. What do you mean by your statement, ''it depends on your epistemology?'

No its not.

Meanwhile, science fully agrees that men descended from microbes.

"Science" does no such thing. Many scientists do -- again, due to a flawed epistemology which denies God, and the Bible.

A man -- whether he is considered a "scientist" or not -- who denies the self-evidence of complexity and design in nature; and the information that is required in the manufacture of the diversity of life, has some serious issues with facing reality.

"Nipples"? Really?

Given what we know about embryology, and that the Y chromosome does not typically provide instructions for the development of the male phenotype until 6 weeks or so after conception --

you're going to base your defense of microbes morphing into men on nipples?

I would say "grasping at straws", but that would be redundant. (and I would say "grasping at..." something else, but that might be vulgar, and inappropriate.

Funny -- but vulgar and inappropriate ).

And we're finding all kinds of uses for what were formerly designated "vestigial" organs. The appendix is one of them.

Not to mention the fallenness our design, due to mutation and entropy.

You're doing a great job of making my case for me. Dare I hope you might come to a "knowledge of the truth" at some point?

I'm just going to keep saying this over and over, because it is the only point I wish to interject into the conversation:

If you want to deny the Creator, you will find the evidence to do so. And if you want to believe the Man never lived; or died and rotted like every other organism on earth has (except for the comparatively few that were fossilized), and you will; you will find all the evidence you need to support your choice.

And vice-versa.

It's not an issue of "science proves..." one or the other. Science cannot prove either view; and supports (depending on one's interpretation of the evidence, stemming from one's epistemology) both.

How is that possible?

"With God, all things are possible."

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 113 by Volbrigade]

This is just contradiction, not argument. When you stated 'it depends on your epistemology' you signalled a change from the scientific method. You have not responded to that issue. What do you mean by your statement, ''it depends on your epistemology?'

No its not.

Meanwhile, science fully agrees that men descended from microbes.

"Science" does no such thing. Many scientists do -- again, due to a flawed epistemology which denies God, and the Bible.

And again you talk about "epistemology" without explaining what you mean by it. In fact, you haven't demonstrated you understand what you are talking about. Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology and tell me where you find "divine revelation" as an epistemology.

You claim to accept what scientists tell us, tho' you disagree with 95 to 100% of them

The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. This debate rages most publicly in the United States, and to a lesser extent in Europe and elsewhere, often portrayed as part of a culture war.
The level of support for evolution is extremely high within the scientific community and in academia, with 95% of scientists supporting evolution.Support for Abrahamic religions' accounts or other creationist alternatives is very low among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among scientists in the relevant fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E ... ontroversy

What you missed by mocking the question of nipples on men is that if your theory that God just created the billions of species in a few days by divine magical decree, he had no reason to give nipples to men. As people who respect science and the evolutionary process we know full well why men have nipples. But 'God,' who as you say can do anything, had no need to give them to men. Was God constrained by some natural, evolutionary process as you accurately describe?

Tell me, what fully accredited university in North America can one go to, to get a doctorate in creationist biology or 'intelligent design?'

The leader of ID and co-founder of the Discovery Institute, Phillip E. Johnson, who is not a YEC, is a retired law professor, not a biologist.

Johnson has been accused of being intellectually dishonest in his arguments advancing intelligent design and attacking the scientific community.[49][50] Johnson has employed numerous equivocations regarding the term "naturalism," failing to distinguish between methodological naturalism (in which science is used to study the natural world and says nothing about the supernatural) versus philosophical naturalism (the philosophical belief that nothing exists but the natural world, and adopts as a premise the idea that there is no supernatural world or deities).[51][52] In fact-checking Johnson's books Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, one reviewer argued that almost every scientific source Johnson cited had been misused or distorted, from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to outright fabrications. The reviewer, Brian Spitzer, an associate professor of biology at the University of Redlands, described Darwin on Trial as the most deceptive book he had ever read.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 117 by Danmark]

It seems like I've defined "epistemology" at least a half a dozen times. "Knowledge -- it's scope and limits..."

I don't know why God gave men nipples, Dan. Maybe because He intended Adam and Eve to be "one flesh". Maybe so he and Eve (and their descendants) could rub their respective pairs together, in erotic foreplay. Read "The Song of Solomon" sometime.

Maybe because if men didn't have nipples, as part of the Y chromosome, it would muck up the works for the ladies somehow.

One thing's for sure -- since God did it, there's a good reason. That's what we find, when we look: "why did God...?" "Ah! That's why!"

As opposed to the standard atheo-secular... Whateverist epistemology, which leads to no answers for anything.

"Why is the universe here?"

"What caused it?"

"Why did microbes form?"

"Why did they increase in information, until they became men?" (we won't bother with 'how')

"How does the fact that they did give meaning and purpose to my life?"

"Why am I here?"

"What is the true? What is the good?"

"Why should I do good?"

Why should I do anything?"

Gee, I dunno... whatever...

[FarWanderer]

Volbrigade,

Scientists are no ultimate authority. But we can use our cognitive faculties to make reasoned judgments about the reliability of the scientists when they make their claims.

You, on the other hand, are talking about taking the bible prior to even your own cognitive faculties.

If you lack faith in your own cognitive faculties so much, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 117 by Danmark]

It seems like I've defined "epistemology" at least a half a dozen times. "Knowledge -- it's scope and limits..."

I don't know why God gave men nipples, Dan. Maybe because He intended Adam and Eve to be "one flesh". Maybe so he and Eve (and their descendants) could rub their respective pairs together, in erotic foreplay. Read "The Song of Solomon" sometime.

Maybe because if men didn't have nipples, as part of the Y chromosome, it would muck up the works for the ladies somehow.

One thing's for sure -- since God did it, there's a good reason. That's what we find, when we look: "why did God...?" "Ah! That's why!"

As opposed to the standard atheo-secular... Whateverist epistemology, which leads to no answers for anything.

"Why is the universe here?"

"What caused it?"

"Why did microbes form?"

"Why did they increase in information, until they became men?" (we won't bother with 'how')

"How does the fact that they did give meaning and purpose to my life?"

"Why am I here?"

"What is the true? What is the good?"

"Why should I do good?"

Why should I do anything?"

Gee, I dunno... whatever...

Well, you may have described your knowledge accurately with your last line.

However many times you may have defined epistemology, you've still got it wrong. Literally epistemology is the study of knowledge. "Put concisely, it is the study of knowledge and justified belief. It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired."
_ Wikipedia

But in any case you have avoided the question, which dealt with your claim that it 'depends upon one's epistemology.' What form of epistemology are you talking about?

What way of knowing is superior in your mind, than the scientific method?

Whatever you say about science it is clear that your "way of knowing" seems to involve the apriori acceptance of the existence of a god and that he is responsible for everything. I come to this conclusion based on your:

One thing's for sure -- since God did it, there's a good reason.

This does not suggest any epistemology at all. Rather, it suggests you just believe because you believe. This is precisely and exactly the opposite of the scientific method as a way of knowing. It also puts an end to any debate on the subject. I accept that as your position.

You've answered one question at least:

You don't know why God put nipples on men, but you are satisfied he did and had a reason. Fine. But let us not pretend that you are interested in using the scientific method to discover the answer, or the answer to any of the questions you posed just now.

Your answer to each of your questions is "God." As I say, that is fine for you and I conclude that answer is neither rational or justifiable; but I admit it is not debatable with you.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 119 by FarWanderer]

I don't want you to think I've been ignoring your posts, FW. I have been occupied, during the amount of time I have to devote to these idle musings, mostly with Joey and Dan.

Here is a good opportunity to tie yours and Dan's last comment, below yours, together.

Faith in one's cognitive abilities includes acknowledging the axiomatic truth that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause."

That the universe is not exempt from this axiom, simply because it is the universe.

And that the cause of the universe must lie outside the universe itself -- it being impossible for a thing to cause itself (and lest there be the usual objection -- matter quantum fluctuates in and and of existence, according to theoretical particle physics; the universe is simply a massive quantum fluctuation, that happened to "stick": something had to cause the matter to quantum fluctuate).

Our cognitive abilities further lead us to conclude one of two things, in regard to this cause of the universe:

It is either mindless, impersonal, and indifferent; it following that the universe is a random event, without meaning or purpose:

Or it has the qualities of Mind; and hence Intelligence and Will; and the universe is the product of deliberate Design, which expresses Information (the opposite of randomness); and that Mind has a meaning, plan, and purpose for the universe It (He) created, as a subset of Its (His) own spiritual hypersdimensionality.

Intelligence Will Design Information.

That is the first step in our cognitive pursuit: all else will follow from which of those steps you choose to take. As I hope I have made clear, the universe is designed in such a manner as to provide constant, continual empirical confirmation of either step, no matter how far you follow its consequent path; without providing conclusive proof of either.

Such is the reality that we face.

In terms of the "debate" -- my only purpose here is to frame it in its proper terms. And yes, it is properly termed a debate in regard to epistemologies, as I apparently must type out, yet again. One epistemology admits knowledge from "outside our time domain"; the other not only does not admit it; or even allow the possibility of it; it does not permit it as inclusive of the term "epistemology".

So we have an uncrossable gulf in our cognitive positions and understanding, right from the onset. Which is to be expected: "what communion has light with darkness?"

The debate that follows from those two fundamental positions is purely and simply over the interpretation of the evidence that is available, through the prisms of the conflicting and opposite epistemologies.

I believe that debate to be beyond the scope of this thread, subforum, or even this site. I, at least, am not interested in, nor qualified to, debate every piece of evidence in terms of whether it is the result of gradual processes in a random universe; or the act of a God who created the universe, and then exercised judgement on His creation through a transformative global flood that resurfaced the face of the earth.

That debate becomes an argument over nipples.

One side says nipples must have evolved, according to the properties of matter, like everything else in the biosphere (wings, eyes, the sonar system of bats, the GPS navigation system of bees) -- I mean, why would God give them to men? Is she such a poor designer?

The other side counters that if men did not have nipples, as part of their information package, would it not dramatically increase the chances of females being born without them, due to a copying error (the result of the law of entropy, which was initiated with the Fall)?

I don't know about you -- but I am happy with my nipples, and am glad that God gave them to me. And my wife (bless her) thinks they're kind of cute.

And don't forget -- there's no reason not to think that God doesn't have a sense of humor (please refer to the last paragraph of Chesteron's landmark "Orthodoxy").

One last thing -- which I am happy to make my final remark; but am not issuing an ultimatum in that regard:

I think this forum is mis-titled. Or, at least, that there should be another one, to reflect the reality of our circumstances.

Not "Science and Religion":

but "Science IS a Religion (or has become one)".