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]

My contribution to the conversation -- which was started on another thread, which was locked -- at any rate, I chimed in simply to make the following point:

What you believe in terms of origins and natural history will depend entirely on your epistemological view.

That is, what you believe, in terms of the scope and limits of knowledge, will define how you will view and interpret the evidence; and hence the issue.

If you believe that knowledge is limited to the physical measurable 4D dimensionailty that we call the "world" or "cosmos", or "universe"; then you must develop a view of history that corresponds with that epistemology.

If, on the other hand, you believe that our 4D dimensionality is but a subset of a "higher", subsuming "hyperdimensionality"; that indeed we exist in a sort of "digital simulation" of a more "really real" reality (btw, Joey -- quantum physics does indeed tell us that there is a limit to "smallness". That while theoretically you can continue to cut a piece of string sequentially in half ad infinitum; in reality there comes a point where a further division will cause a particle to "lose locality", as with a photon), and that knowledge can be, and has been, imparted to us from outside our time domain -- the Eternal (and, again, Joey -- eternity is not "lots and lots of time"; it is beyond time. Time was created when God said "let light be", as was everything else during the week of Creation. That time, too, could have passed at greatly different rates due to the unique gravity situation during that event -- including God's "stretching of of the Heavens like a tent cloth" (the fabric of space-time):

then you will obviously, "naturally" , have a different view.

I would like to piggy-back on that observation here.

It became clear to me, long ago, that there was all the evidence one could ever wish, in order to put their faith in Jesus Christ, and become a Christian.

At the same time (as with light itself, which is a particle-wave duality -- both, at the same time ), there is all the evidence one needs to believe that there is no "super"-nature; only nature -- and that therefore life must have arisen and developed by natural (slow and gradual) causes over a uniformitarian period of billions of years.

I came to this conclusion because I once held the latter view, and adopted the former.

And I thought then, when I came to that conclusion, that the dividing line between the two is FAITH.

That one must choose which one they will believe: and that not making a choice was itself a choice (in that case, for vagueness and compromise).

What has occurred to me in the course of the last couple of days, a period of gestating this conversation, while I have been traveling and otherwise engaged --

is that while I have a great deal more knowledge and information than I did when I reached that conclusion (was, in fact, a long-age compromiser at that time), about BOTH evolutionary theory, and the creationist counter to them:

the conclusion still holds true.

In fact, I will submit that no matter how much you know; or how much your knowledge increases; that the dividing line remains the same. IOWs, there is always more evidence to support the evolutionary myth, if that is the choice for your belief;

and there is always more evidence to support the Biblical account, and the truth of the Bible, if that is your choice for belief.

I do not believe this is by accident.

"There are no accidents in God's Kingdom".

I believe that FAITH is the crucial (literally, "of the cross") element in entering and obtaining the Spirit life (and will spare you the numerous scriptural citations to that effect), and that our free will is quintessential in having faith (i.e, it must not be overwhelmed. God cannot manifest Himself in all His glory, as it would ravish our free will in choosing to believe in Him; and in doing so our salvation by faith alone) and that He has deliberately, skillfully engineered a reality in which one could never come to faith by empirical evidence alone:

nor need one's faith be troubled by the same evidence (which is the blessed work of ministries such as CMI -- to put the "scientific evidence" [e.g., radiometeric dating, the fossil and geologic records] in their proper perspective).

At the end of the day, we must make a choice as to which -- m2m Evolution, or the Biblical account (there are other alternatives, I suppose -- but I posit those as the two that ultimately must be chosen from) one chooses to put their faith in.

More important than that choice, but interrelated with it as inextricably as time is with space, is the choice each of us must make in regard to Jesus Christ:

lunatic, liar -- or Lord of Heaven and Earth, and of one's life?

[Danmark]

My contribution to the conversation -- which was started on another thread, which was locked -- at any rate, I chimed in simply to make the following point:

What you believe in terms of origins and natural history will depend entirely on your epistemological view.

That is, what you believe, in terms of the scope and limits of knowledge, will define how you will view and interpret the evidence; and hence the issue.

You convict yourself with this feckless attempt, because you have called upon science to support this absurd view that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. You have tried to use science to prove this point. You have failed miserably. You admit you don't really understand science, but you quote from creation sites which claim to use science to prove the 4.5 billion year old earth is only 6000 - 10,000 years old. They have failed utterly to do so. You, and creation sites you quote also try to use science to prove evolution does not take place.

Now, when your claims that science supports these absurd views falls flat on it's face, you fall back on this, "Well... it depends on your epistemology." If one attempts to use science as his way of knowing in order to prove something and then his way of knowing proves him wrong, it is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty, to discredit science and call for a different epistemology. It is an admission that you really don't care about the method of knowing, as long as it supports your predetermined conclusion from religious scripture. If you admit that it's all a matter of miracles and science doesn't matter, fine. But you and other creationists have made this feeble claim that science proves you are right. To suggest there is a better way to prove your point when science shows you are wrong makes transparent that you believe what you believe despite the scientific evidence.

I freely admit that if we abandon scientific methodology and empiricism as our epistemology and substitute magic and miracles, then anything is possible.

[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?