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.

[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.

[Danmark]

[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.

I appreciate your candor in recognizing you do not personally possess the qualifications to directly judge these matters. I confess I also am not an evolutionary biologist nor a geologist though I have worked professionally with with experts in the fields. I agree that for most of us we have to rely on experts in the field.

And that is why I rely on the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepting evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, and the conclusion of nearly every scientific society and 72 US Nobel Prize winners, as well as the courts' judgment that evolution is the accepted scientific explanation for life on Earth, as well as the judgment that creation 'science' is not science, I defer to those experts. But I do not do so in a vacuum. My own experience in both public schools and in science classes at a Christian college are consistent with the conclusions of the experts. Even then, I don't take it at face value, but have enough understanding that at least on an elementary level I can appreciate how evolutionary changes occur.

At that point I have to ask the question, why would anyone disagree with the conclusion about the validity of evolution? And the answer is clear, I know of no one, not one person who argues against evolution who isn't motivated by religious reasons. In other words, there IS no scientific dispute. The dispute is between science and a faction of religious believers who in fact say "These facts and this theory contradicts my religious beliefs, therefore the facts must be wrong."

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 102 by JoeyKnothead]

The (m2m? As stated, I also believe in "changes in an allele -- vb) 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.

And my position is that it is not.

My position is, it's an outdated and outmoded attempt to shoehorn a materialist explanation for why "things act according to their properties", that totally ignores the subsuming reality of which ours is but a subset.

Regarding the soul (or "mind"; roughly interchangeable, to me. I see man as a triadic creature -- body, soul, and spirit; a reflection of the Triune God. Only our spirit -- the eternal life in us -- is dead, until it partakes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But let's not get too far afield):

why would you look for empirical evidence of something that's not empirical?

Look: your brain is hardware. Your soul is software. If you damage the hardware, then it will not read the software correctly.

Everyone of us will have our hardware damaged, unto the death.

But our software has no mass, weight, or any other physical property.

And having none of those physical properties, then physical laws such as gravity and entropy have no effect on it.

Now we know that time is a physical property, which is affected by gravity and velocity, among other factors.

What I'm trying to get to is that our souls are not subject to time. They are eternal; which makes the matter of where they will spend eternity one of utmost importance.

Do you believe the universe had a beginning? The evidence says it did; otherwise, it would be infinitely old. And if that were so, it would have succumbed to the "heat death" of all heat moving to cold, and the attaining of a uniform temperature of absolute zero. Agreed?

So -- the universe is finite in age. It is also finite in size -- it may be expanding (it may not), but it is in some sense "bounded". It is also finite in size on the scale of smallness, according to quantum theory.

The inference here is that there is a "metacosm" that is hyperdimensional to our"macro" and "micro" cosms -- our Cosmos.

Our souls represent a tangential contact with that metacosm. The past is a memory; the future a promise. All we have is each moment. That's why they call it "the present" -- it's a gift.

And each moment is our soul's contact with the eternal. You follow?

I'm working on my proofs of all this, and should be getting them to you "right soon".

Yes, CMI is clear on their position. Their standpoint is that the Bible is true, and that position is the "lens" through which they interpret the science.

Which is a problem, only if the Bible is not true.

The science supports that it is.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to Volbrigade]
You may not want to admit it, but your position is, in fact, "the facts are contrary to my preconceived religious notions so the fact must be wrong."

[FarWanderer]

Regarding the soul (or "mind"; roughly interchangeable, to me.

Noted.

But our software has no mass, weight, or any other physical property.

And having none of those physical properties, then physical laws such as gravity and entropy have no effect on it.

I don't think so. Even assuming dualism (which I think is nonsense) physical events and mental events are still part of the same causal chain. You can't tell me that you wouldn't think or behave differently if you didn't experience gravity, for example.

Now we know that time is a physical property, which is affected by gravity and velocity, among other factors.

What I'm trying to get to is that our souls are not subject to time. They are eternal; which makes the matter of where they will spend eternity one of utmost importance.

This is just silly on the face of it. Is your soul (or "mind") the same now as it was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago? Of course not. You've changed.

And each moment is our soul's contact with the eternal. You follow?

Works for me. But if our soul is eternal, what's it mean for it to be in contact with the eternal?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 105:

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.

And my position is that it is not.

My position is, it's an outdated and outmoded attempt to shoehorn a materialist explanation for why "things act according to their properties", that totally ignores the subsuming reality of which ours is but a subset.

So we carry on, me a-dispargin' your lineage in an obvious attempt to distract from my failures, and you a-tellin' what a big ol' doofus I am, and how it is, you have sound data in support of that contention, interspersed with us a-tryin' to put forth a sound argument

I'd like to get at that last bit...

...the subsuming reality of which ours is but a subset.

Science, as a discipline, can't rightly address that which is "outside" of it. It can't address this notion that "there's something more there that can't be shown to be there". With that in mind, science looks at what can be observed, and draws its conclusions (right or wrong) from it. Such that, if we wish to overturn a scientific notion, we're bound to scientific principles.

Then we think about what (some, many, insert preferred term) creationists propose, and we see their arguments lack that scientific rigor.

why would you look for empirical evidence of something that's not empirical?

I'm not a moderator, so I'm reticent to declare here what is or ain't empirical, or the importance of it.

My position is that the conclusions of my opponents in this matter don't even rise to the level of reasoned conclusions. I'm not trying to insult or defame, but to speak as honest as I can, using words I understand. I only wish to declare I think my opponents have it wrong.

Our issue then becomes one of why would we introduce the non-empirical into science. In considering the ToE, it's built upon much empirical data, such that we can make reasoned conclusions based thereupon. Is there empirical evidence that man is the end result of, to use the shorthand, "microbes to man evolution"? I propose that while we can't rewind history to show such is the case empirically, that it's the most reasoned conclusion based on what empirical data we do have.

Is this conclusion open to change? Certainly, no matter the odds against it. But, we must contrast that with organizations such as one of Volbrigade's sources, Creation.com, which declares that nothing that contradicts Creation.com's biblical understanding can be correct. If it doesn't fit their biblical notions, it must be wrong. That ain't science. That ain't what science does.

Look: your brain is hardware. Your soul is software. If you damage the hardware, then it will not read the software correctly.

Software's held in physical space on a computer, whether magnetically, or as pits (physically, variations in elevation or space) on a cd / dvd.

Your own words indicate that no software can exist without the physical hardware. This is a problem with declaring some sentient entity came before his own creating of the physical.

Everyone of us will have our hardware damaged, unto the death.

Indicating our life is dependent on our hardware. Such a condition doesn't bode well for the proposition of a sentient entity that doesn't have such "hardware".

But our software has no mass, weight, or any other physical property.

Sure it does, on the "disk drive" in which it's contained.

And having none of those physical properties, then physical laws such as gravity and entropy have no effect on it.

See above, where you yourself indicate our "software" is directly tied to our "hardware".

Now we know that time is a physical property, which is affected by gravity and velocity, among other factors.

What I'm trying to get to is that our souls are not subject to time. They are eternal; which makes the matter of where they will spend eternity one of utmost importance.

Eternal is a measure of time. Anything measured in time is subject to it.

Do you believe the universe had a beginning?

I make no claims in this regard.

I find it special pleading to declare the universe can't have always existed in one form or another, but this sentient being I propose did.

The evidence says it did; otherwise, it would be infinitely old. And if that were so, it would have succumbed to the "heat death" of all heat moving to cold, and the attaining of a uniform temperature of absolute zero. Agreed?

Has there ever been a time when there wasn't a now? (thanks to a friend I won't name so he ain't held liable in my dooficity).

So -- the universe is finite in age. It is also finite in size -- it may be expanding (it may not), but it is in some sense "bounded". It is also finite in size on the scale of smallness, according to quantum theory.

"Smallness" is a subjective term. Measure anything. Divide it by half, and how 'bout that, you've got you a smallnesser.

You're still not accounting for the notion the universe may have existed in a different form that what we presently observe. We know the universe exists, that's about as far back in time as we can look.

The inference here is that there is a "metacosm" that is hyperdimensional to our"macro" and "micro" cosms -- our Cosmos.

I submit your is inference is in error for the various reasons above.

Our souls represent a tangential contact with that metacosm. The past is a memory; the future a promise. All we have is each moment. That's why they call it "the present" -- it's a gift.

Has the person born miserable been given a gift, or a curse?

And each moment is our soul's contact with the eternal. You follow?

I don't.

You seem to employ arguments based on emotional attachments that are unfitting to scientific discipline, or rigor.

I'm working on my proofs of all this, and should be getting them to you "right soon".

Well hurry, 'cause I ain't sure my promise of a future's gonna hold up

Yes, CMI is clear on their position. Their standpoint is that the Bible is true, and that position is the "lens" through which they interpret the science.

What good's a lens that don't let light through?

Which is a problem, only if the Bible is not true.

The science supports that it is.

I respect your disagreement all the way up to there it is ya do


Really though, I can't rightly sit here and say you're a big 'ol so and so for thinking different. I, like the rest of us, rely on what I've been told, and read, and come up with, and all such as that. I hope our debate encourages folks to do their own research.

[KenRU]

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.

That reply is almost quoted verbatim from Creation.com. Interesting.

Your assertion is simply not true. All the facts supporting evolution simply line up and lend themselves to one inescapable truth: Evolution occurs. Astronomy, genetics, radiocarbon dating, core ice samples, fossil records, dna: all of the data from these fields (according to you) yield results so malleable that fossils can be incorporated (as Creation.com asserts) anywhere? Then it should be very easy to prove false. And not the opposite.

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

They certainly are, for Creationists, that is.

My point still stands: All it takes is one out of place fossil and evolution would be disproven. But not one of the Creationist scientists are apparently bright enough to prove it wrong. Given the length of time required by evolution, it should be very easy to find a dinosaur fossil mixed with a human fossil, or as the adage goes: a rabbit in the Precambrian.

Yet this has never happened. A simple quip of “because whatever sequence they are found in, MUST be the "right"� offers nothing to prove your point and ignores how easy evolution should be to disprove if we simply draw a conclusion from your argument.

But that doesn’t happen either.

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

I am. Thank you.

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

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

So, I decided to do a little fact checking on some of the claims the sites make. Here’s what I found:

The Trilobite Argument:
Trilobites, which are allegedly 500 myo in the Cambrian strata, have eyes that are far too complex for their place in the fossil record. That is, they have no precursors to their appearance.

What I Found:
It is the first record of the compound eye, but it is not out of place in the fossil records.

Link: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... years-ago/
Key Quote: They represent the first evolutionary appearance of a compound eye, and their construction and diversity are stunning.

Arguing that it is “far too complex for their place in the fossil record� simply is not true. In fact, if I read the other websites correctly, there is even a branch that evolves off from the trilobite that loses its use of eyes (a direct line can be traced).

Supporting links: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/visua ... of-vision/

http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm
Key quote: All early trilobites (Cambrian), had holochroal eyes and it would seem hard to evolve the distinctive phacopid schizochroal eye from this form. The answer is thought to lie in ontogenetic (developmental) processes on an evolutionary time scale. Paedomorphosis is the retention of ancestral juvenile characteristics into adulthood in the descendent. Paedomorphosis can occur three ways: Progenesis (early sexual maturation in an otherwise juvenile body), Neoteny (reduced rate of morphological development), and Post-displacement (delayed growth of certain structures relative to others). The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is a good example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form.


The Pollen Fossils Argument:
Perhaps most astonishingly, pollen fossils—evidence of flowering plants—were found in the Precambrian strata. According to evolutionists, flowering plants first evolved 160 mya, but the Precambrian strata is older than 550 mya.

What I Found:
False, this has been explained.

Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC341.html
Key Quote: Most of the palynology work was done by Clifford Burdick, who had very little knowledge of geological techniques. Creationists themselves admit that his results come from contamination of old rocks by recent pollen [Flank 1995; Chadwick 1973; 1981].

Link: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/po ... index.html
Key Quote: Creationists have often cited the presence of Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon as evidences against the validity of the geologic column. In this paper, the author examines this evidence for this claim, and does not find it to be credible.


That’s just two of the assertions made by the site you provided that were easily debunked. If you’re truly interested in learning what current science has to say on the subject, I suggest you utilize the links above, or many others readily available on the internet.

I’ll stress my point, it should be quite easy to find out of place fossils, given your argument for the age of the earth. Find a fossil with a vertebrate dated older than 500 million years. Find a dinosaur fossil dated within the last 60 million years. Find a complex life fossil located in the Precambrian era. Find just one of these and poof: evolution has been disproven.

But it hasn’t happened, even though as you say (in Post 84): “The difference is that one -- yours, the m2m fabrication -- is sub-rational: that is, it is absurd on the face of it, and begins and ends in nothing.�

If it is sub-rational and absurd, it should very easy to prove false.

Apparently, no Creationist scientist is bright enough to do this.