Two potential creation scenarios

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
agnosticatheist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm

Two potential creation scenarios

Post #1

Post by 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. :-k

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #61

Post by Danmark »

NOVA interviewed Mary Schweitzer, an evangelical Christian, the paleontologist whose team found well preserved T. Rex fossils and has been distorted and used by non scientist creationists to promote the idea the Earth is only 10,000 years old or less. She gives a great summary of the various sciences that support a very old Earth:

"Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field?
Carl Baker, Billings, Montana

Schweitzer: Actually, my work doesn't say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/schweitzer-qa.html

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #62

Post by Volbrigade »

JoeyKnothead wrote: For reference:
Creation.com About Us wrote: ...The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
...
Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
...
At least in science, corrections can be made.

(tag edit, and how 'bout that :wave: )
And thank God for that -- because science is limited and fallible. 8-)

Would you want to be treated for cancer, with 1950s medical technology?

But God's Word is unlimited, and infallible. And no, I don't have "empirical proof" to support that claim. As Chesterton so famously remarked: "the only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical proof is The Fall."

A piece of advice: if you live your life demanding "empirical evidence" or "proof" in regard to spiritual matters, then you will live an unspiritual life. And that's a shame, with tragic consequences.

I acknowledge that comment as being editorial in nature -- offered free of charge.

Danmark:

It appears you desire to engage in a blow-by-blow over the evidences that I submitted. I am afraid you'll have to find another dancing partner for that.

My purpose was simply to point out the superiority of the Genesis creation account over the secular m2m evolutionary myth that is its chief rival (and, importantly, the primary challenge to the authority of the Word of God in our time).

The idea that the universe created itself; life brought itself into existence; and microbes proceeded to develop into men, is preposterous, fantastical, and impossible on the face of it.

The only reason to subscribe to such a belief is in substitute for the truth -- not in search for it. It is, purely and simply, an ideology that denies the existence of God, which renders it immediately invalid. And its appeal is personal, not scientific. If it can be shown that there is no need for a Creator, then we are excused from being in need of Him; or of salvation.

That is deception.

For verification, you will need to look elsewhere than in a laboratory. ;)

I am delighted to live in a time when the preponderance of the science is lining up against the 19th century evolutionary myth; and in support of the 1st century event that is central to the story of man's existence -- the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That reality is percolating down to the laity, thanks to the devoted work of many courageous scientists, who refuse(d) to join in the chorus of praise for the emperor's non-existent clothes.

I have nothing but admiration for those whose faith remained strong during that period (roughly, the middle part of the 20th century) when the evolutionary myth seemed ascendant -- almost invincible -- and question whether I could've come to faith during such a time. Thank God, there are those that stand taller than I.

So -- evidence was called for, demanded, in support of my claims: I have provided it. Please review it to your heart's content; challenge it; contact CMI and express your challenge directly, if you like (that's what they're there for).

An honest assessment of it -- absent preconditions, presuppositions, or personal preference and bias -- can only lead to one place.

This cosmos requires a Creator.

It has one.

His story, as it relates to man, is revealed in The Bible.

And that information is magisterial over our scientific analysis of His physical creation.

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #63

Post by H.sapiens »

Volbrigade wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote: For reference:
Creation.com About Us wrote: ...The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
...
Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
...
At least in science, corrections can be made.

(tag edit, and how 'bout that :wave: )
And thank God for that -- because science is limited and fallible. 8-)
but religion is wrong and uncorrectable.
Volbrigade wrote: Would you want to be treated for cancer, with 1950s medical technology?
You'd rather the biblical injunction of, "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee..."? Sounds more like 1930s medical technology.
Volbrigade wrote: But God's Word is unlimited, and infallible. And no, I don't have "empirical proof" to support that claim. As Chesterton so famously remarked: "the only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical proof is The Fall."
Even the Fall lacks empirical evidence, though it is a cute turn of phrase. I much prefer the Spring or the Summer.
Volbrigade wrote: A piece of advice: if you live your life demanding "empirical evidence" or "proof" in regard to spiritual matters, then you will live an unspiritual life. And that's a shame, with tragic consequences.
a non-spiritual life can be equally or more rewarding than a spiritual one, I know that for a fact. As to tragic consequences, I assume that you speak of "going to hell." I'd say the possibility of that is passing small.
Volbrigade wrote: I acknowledge that comment as being editorial in nature -- offered free of charge.
and worth even less than it cost.
Volbrigade wrote:
Danmark:

It appears you desire to engage in a blow-by-blow over the evidences that I submitted. I am afraid you'll have to find another dancing partner for that.
You don't know the steps?
Volbrigade wrote:
My purpose was simply to point out the superiority of the Genesis creation account over the secular m2m evolutionary myth that is its chief rival (and, importantly, the primary challenge to the authority of the Word of God in our time).
You've massive failed at that, you've offered no support evidence of any sort, all you've done is make wild claims.
Volbrigade wrote: The idea that the universe created itself; life brought itself into existence; and microbes proceeded to develop into men, is preposterous, fantastical, and impossible on the face of it.
No it is not. The idea that everything we have yet to clearly figure out demands the hand and mind of a super-fairy and requires a long detour into an argument from ignorance.
Volbrigade wrote: The only reason to subscribe to such a belief is in substitute for the truth -- not in search for it. It is, purely and simply, an ideology that denies the existence of God, which renders it immediately invalid. And its appeal is personal, not scientific. If it can be shown that there is no need for a Creator, then we are excused from being in need of Him; or of salvation.
I can't help myself: "The Truth ... you can't handle the Truth!"
Volbrigade wrote: That is deception.

For verification, you will need to look elsewhere than in a laboratory. ;)
I spend as little time in a laboratory as possible, you have no verification of any sort.
Volbrigade wrote: I am delighted to live in a time when the preponderance of the science is lining up against the 19th century evolutionary myth; and in support of the 1st century event that is central to the story of man's existence -- the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Care to actually try and make a case for that claim? I rather doubt that you can.
Volbrigade wrote: That reality is percolating down to the laity, thanks to the devoted work of many courageous scientists, who refuse(d) to join in the chorus of praise for the emperor's non-existent clothes.
Many courageous scientists? Hardly, a few deluded and trouled souls.
Volbrigade wrote: I have nothing but admiration for those whose faith remained strong during that period (roughly, the middle part of the 20th century) when the evolutionary myth seemed ascendant -- almost invincible -- and question whether I could've come to faith during such a time. Thank God, there are those that stand taller than I.
Again, I'd like to see your support for this claim.
Volbrigade wrote: So -- evidence was called for, demanded, in support of my claims: I have provided it. Please review it to your heart's content; challenge it; contact CMI and express your challenge directly, if you like (that's what they're there for).
You have provided NO EVIDENCE. All you have done is demonstrate that your mouth is full of tongue.
Volbrigade wrote: An honest assessment of it -- absent preconditions, presuppositions, or personal preference and bias -- can only lead to one place.

This cosmos requires a Creator.

It has one.

His story, as it relates to man, is revealed in The Bible.

And that information is magisterial over our scientific analysis of His physical creation.
Once again, no data, no analysis, not even a creditable testimonial. All claim, no information.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #64

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: Danmark:

It appears you desire to engage in a blow-by-blow over the evidences that I submitted. I am afraid you'll have to find another dancing partner for that.
This is no surprise.
Apparently your aim is to claim science proves the Earth is young, 10,000 years or so, or less. When the science you claim supports this theory is proved wrong, that the non scientists like Batten, Hovind, Ham et al. are proved to have misrepresented scientific discoveries, to have perverted truth and misrepresented evidence, naturally you fall back and say, in effect "I'm not going to actually discuss the evidence."

Of course you won't. The evidence demonstrates your position is wrong. What you've virtually admitted is that you rely solely on the Bible, and not upon science at all.

This leads to the next question: what is your basis for believing the Bible is the infallible word of God? It seems obvious it is not the word of god because of the many errors it makes in its description of the natural world. It is also obvious the bible was written so a certain tribe of nomads could claim a god gave them the right to steal land that was occupied by other men.
Last edited by Danmark on Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #65

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 61:
Volbrigade wrote: ...
Would you want to be treated for cancer, with 1950s medical technology?
Don't hafta, 'cause here it is, it's 2015.
Volbrigade wrote: But God's Word is unlimited, and infallible. And no, I don't have "empirical proof" to support that claim.
Then it can be dismissed.
Volbrigade wrote: As Chesterton so famously remarked: "the only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical proof is The Fall."
Assumes, without evidence, that there was some superior state to begin with.
Volbrigade wrote: A piece of advice: if you live your life demanding "empirical evidence" or "proof" in regard to spiritual matters, then you will live an unspiritual life. And that's a shame, with tragic consequences.
What consequences?
Volbrigade wrote: I acknowledge that comment as being editorial in nature -- offered free of charge.
Nor will I charge for having dismissed it, on account of you offer no support for it.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #66

Post by Volbrigade »

[Replying to post 63 by Danmark]
This leads to the next question: what is your basis for believing the Bible is the infallible word of God?
Because its narrative corresponds to reality. We exist, in a universe that exists -- the Bible explains how and why. There is something desperately wrong with mankind -- the only species that lies; that deliberately acts against its own best interests, and those of its kind. The Bible explains why.

It tells the history of a global cataclysmic flood, the evidence for which is ubiquitous.

It tells the story of Jesus Christ, and the Jewish people from which He came, and who are still extant, and against all odds have become reestablished in their ancestral homeland, as foretold.

In short, it tells the truth.

In fact -- it is the ultimate source of truth in our world. What corresponds with it, is also true; what contradicts it, is not true.

Of course, some things can be in closer proximity to truth than others, without being completely true themselves.

Again -- what we are faced with is an epistemological choice. I choose that knowledge is NOT limited to the sphere of the temporal and material. And that knowledge from outside that sphere has been introduced into our time domain; and that the fulfillment of that knowledge, and of Truth, is Jesus Christ.

If you are satisfied that knowledge IS limited to the temporal and material -- well, that's your choice. Or is it? Such a view has become so predominant in our time, that many people adopt it by osmosis, and without reflection.

I believe it is a harmful view, one of the consequences of which is the devaluation of humans (just another animal), and the subjectivity of individual rights (they certainly can't be "endowed by our Creator." Who, then? Men. On what basis?).
It seems obvious it is not the word of god because of the many errors it makes in its description of the natural world.
I'm not aware of a single one. Enlighten me.

The opposite is true, in fact. It enlightens our understanding. Illuminates it. "God stretched the heavens like a tent cloth". It assures us that there is a Divine order and design. Which is precisely what we observe -- we just leave off the "divine"; and, in our post-post-modern age (and even more incoherently), we leave off even the "design" "order" and "information" they express.

Conversely, m2m is an endarkened theory that leads to further endarkenment. It has no explanation for existence; nor for how life arose; nor for how life climbed (either "uphill" or "sideways" -- take your pick. "Downhill?") from microbes to men, that is not based on non-sequiturs, ad hoc explanations, and pure wishful thinking. It draws, as its ultimate "logical" conclusion, the inevitable "fact" that life has no meaning or purpose; that human life is of no more value than a microbe; and murder is nothing more than one bag of chemicals acting on another.
It is also obvious the bible was written so a certain tribe of nomads could claim a god gave them the right to steal land that was occupied by other men.
A silly, superficial, shallow meme that expresses a deliberately obtuse and misleading bias; not held by anyone of any repute -- only Noam Chomsky-types.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #67

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: [Replying to post 63 by Danmark]
This leads to the next question: what is your basis for believing the Bible is the infallible word of God?
Because its narrative corresponds to reality. .
But this s simply not true. As you've discovered the non scientists like Ham, Hovind, and Batten fail in their attempt to show the world is young, 6000 years or so by Biblical claims. They've even had their attempts to show the Earth is young exposed, their misrepresentations revealed. No wonder you don't want to take on their claims issue by issue. Even Christian scientists like Mary Schweitzer agree it is billions of years old. You've stated you won't try to continue a point by point, head to head and you are wise to do so, but to persist in the claim that the Bible corresponds to reality, after you've you've given up the chance to take up the challenge, is a hollow claim.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #68

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: It tells the history of a global cataclysmic flood, the evidence for which is ubiquitous.
Again the Bible does not tell the truth about a world wide flood. The evidence is not ubiquitous. This is another unsupported claim. The Bible borrows the epic of Gilgamesh in telling its flood myth. There are other flood myths in many cultures. This is hardly surprising since cultures and civilizations have been built along rivers throughout man's history, and rivers are prone to periodic flooding. Many of these myths contain absurdities, but none greater than the impossibility of having every species brought onto a boat in groups of two. Apparently the dinosaurs were left out.

But Noah did make sure and get all 3500 different species of mosquitoes on board. Thank you Noah. He wasn't able to get a single pair of pterodactyls aboard, but he got all 500,000 different species of beetle on the Ark. Why God wanted half a million different types of beetles is anyone's guess.

Taking these ancient myths literally and claiming they represent reality is a colossal joke.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #69

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: [Replying to post 63 by Danmark]
It is also obvious the bible was written so a certain tribe of nomads could claim a god gave them the right to steal land that was occupied by other men.
A silly, superficial, shallow meme that expresses a deliberately obtuse and misleading bias; not held by anyone of any repute -- only Noam Chomsky-types.
The Torah is nothing if it does not chronicle the of the adventures of the Hebrews as they travel along and steal the land of other tribes with the blessing of their God. Ad hominem references to people you don't like doesn't change a thing. All we have to do to refute your claims is read the Bible:

'And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.' Deuteronomy 2:34

'And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.' Deuteronomy 3:6

'And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.' Deuteronomy 7:2

'And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them.' Deuteronomy 7:16

'Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.' Deuteronomy 13:15

'But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17

'And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.' Joshua 6:21

'So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.' Joshua 10:40

'Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #70

Post by Volbrigade »

[Replying to post 68 by Danmark]

Yes.

The Bible tells the story of man's depravity, once having fallen into sin, without pulling any punches. It's a tough sled.

Praise God, it also tells us the way out of our sinful predicament, through Jesus Christ.

At any rate -- those instances you cite (and seem to selectively latch onto their historical veracity pretty ardently 8-) ) -- what are they, really, except one group of chemical bags acting on another, on the basis of each groups' greater concentration of shared DNA? And didn't they evolve to act on each other that way?

Your characterization of what men like Batten, Ham, Sarfati, et. al. propose is so far afield, that it completely undermines your credibility in other areas -- especially the specious claim that "they've been exposed...".

I wish they were. I wish their radical interpretations of the evidence WERE exposed, so that more would be aware of them. Your utter misapprehensions of their positions -- as well as what the Bible says -- are solid evidence that they haven't been. Slandered; mischaracterized; condemned without investigation -- yes. "Exposed" -- no.

You would do well to engage in a thorough investigation of the evidences I provided. Then, we could have an intelligent conversation relative to their merits. I urge you to do so -- you'll be amazed at what you'll learn.

We seem to be going over the same ground again and again. You keep bringing up Dr. S. -- what difference does it make what she believes the age of the soft tissue to be? She merely found it -- she didn't put it in the ground (by sudden encapsulation in rapid sedimentation, 4,500 years ago).

Again -- you wanted evidence. I provided it. Twice.

You want to debate each of the 101 items? No thanks. I have a life.

Speaking of which -- just a question; a digression, if you will; you need not answer if you don't want to:

but why does someone who doesn't believe in God, the Bible, or Christianity, log onto a "Debating Christianity" site to endlessly debate something that, in their view, doesn't exist, is not true, and is therefore of no consequence?

Post Reply