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.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 18 by H.sapiens]

Again, there is neither uphill nor downhill, there is just change and the "success" of the change is medicated by the environment of the moment. There is not need for an intelligence, supreme or inferior and evolution does, obviously, generate novel structures and solutions.

It's nice that it does that. That is, that it decided to do that. Nice of God to ordain that it do that.

Don't you agree?

You really don't consider the mythical climb form microbe to man, an "uphill" process?

In that case, it's just sort of sideways, I guess.

I asked, earlier, for scientific evidence that a human being is of any more value than a dog, pig, or slug.

In your worldview, there is none. None is needed. We have no more value than the solid waste products we eliminate (argubly, less -- they, at least, can be pressed into utilitarian use as fuel).

For there is no such thing as value, or any standards, in any meaningful, ultimate, absolute sense (how could there be? We're just matter interacting with other matter).

God help us from such a predicament. From such an epistemology. From such a worldview, and philosophy.

Praise God --

He has.

You're prevaricating and changing the subject. Has the topic become too difficult for you to try and bully your way through?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to Clownboat]

I sure am glad this site has rules against personal comments, and making personal attacks.

I have to admit -- your case is compelling. You sound like you have attained a great deal of inner peace; expressed in sparking prose (here comes the thread lockdown ).

Please do tell me its source. What informs your life with meaning? Why does it make any difference at all whether you draw one more breath, or not? Be sure to provide scientific evidence for your claims.

Can you say why a human being has more intrinsic value than a cockroach?

Show your work!

Extra credit:

provide empirical evidence that your outlook on life is in any sense "better" than mine.

Extra extra credit:

define "better".

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

Noting I'm kinda buttin' in, but I feel compelled to offer my take on it...

...
What informs your life with meaning?

The fact of living.

Why does it make any difference at all whether you draw one more breath, or not?

'Cause I don't want the pretty thing to cry when I die, and I'd be upset if'n she didn't.

Be sure to provide scientific evidence for your claims.

Science doesn't always lend itself to the study of one's love for their own family.

Can you say why a human being has more intrinsic value than a cockroach?

'Cause in this house, them roaches don't pay no rent, don't kick in on groceries or beer, they just keep trying to have their nasty roach orgies.

Ah, but what if we asked the roach?

...
provide empirical evidence that your outlook on life is in any sense "better" than mine.

I don't reckon it is, but I don't reckon it ain't.

define "better"

A sure sight more palatable than worse.


As all this relates to the OP, I would say that consciousness does exist on a spectrum, where we see some folks feel more about this, or they feel more about that, and how ya never see fish riot in the streets.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 22 by JoeyKnothead]

Thanks for weighing in, Joey.

I like your style.

After all -- since nothing really matters, no reason to take anything seriously, right?

Can you fathom, for the life of you, why people get so shook up when the little evolutionary hoax they've put their faith in is challenged?

Man! I mean, people get mouth-foaming over it!

Lighten up, ladies, is what I say.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]

Scenario 1:

God created the species each after their own kind. And then God made man after his own image, his own likeness; after God-kind, not animal kind.

God did not make it look like evolution, human beings made in the image of God and his own likeness, are trying to draw evolutionary conclusions based upon limited knowledge. We don’t see, hear or realize any involvement of God with evolution, only man’s reasoning.

Man’s reasoning is the source of the doubt. Why? Do you have a love of the truth that you might be saved? II Thess 2:9-12. We are accountable for our own responses to the truth. If we have a love of the truth, we will eventually find it, Luke 11:11.


Scenario 2:

Not to sure about the emerge part. God said: after its own kind, and it was so, and saw that it was good. Gen 1:24-25 for instance.

Your use of carbon-based life forms is another way, perhaps, of saying we were all made from the dust of the earth. Well, we are all made of the same type of molecules and compounds along with trace elements and the like found in the dust of the earth, so to speak. This is so, that grass will grow, the cow can eat the grass, predators can eat the cow, scavengers can clean up, ….and man can eat the plants and the animals. Life forms die, and become food for the plants. …..each fulfilling the measure its creation.

After God created the plants and animals, he pronounced it good. He didn’t say that after creating man…..He is still waiting to see

I wouldn’t get too caught up in connecting the dots that Darwinism and evolution would have you connect. If you want to succeed and get into med or law school, etc… you have to answers the questions about evolution much like any other subject to succeed, but you don’t have to believe it, Luke 16:9; just be friends in the knowledge exchange.

By way of comparison, let’s consider engines with propellers. The little airplane engine that flies in a circle held by strings, or the larger remote controlled plane engines, and commercial airliners, then helicopter, and lawn mowers, ceiling fans, etc…. Its an exaggerated example, but using evolutionary reasoning, lets pretend the engines with propellers are fossils, and that they are scattered over the land and in the soil like fossils. They are dug up, lined up and one says the smaller evolved into the larger, evolutionary pressure favored the lawn mower to harvest grass, and vertical flight of a helicopter had an evolutionary advantage, ceiling fans had a symbiotic relationship with houses, etc….Not a bit of it would be true, but it follows evolutionary reasoning using an exaggerated example. Nothing new here….. even on the molecular level.

Just a few thoughts…..

[Goat]

[Replying to post 22 by JoeyKnothead]

Thanks for weighing in, Joey.

I like your style.

After all -- since nothing really matters, no reason to take anything seriously, right?

Can you fathom, for the life of you, why people get so shook up when the little evolutionary hoax they've put their faith in is challenged?

Man! I mean, people get mouth-foaming over it!

Lighten up, ladies, is what I say.

Shock up?? Hardly. I feel sad that someone does not look at the evidence , nor can come to a rational evaluation, instead pushing a medieval interpretation of a bronze age story... but that is an entirely different matter.

You see, when it comes to evolution, there is this thing that is missing from the Biblical account. That is tangible, objective evidence for one, with convergence of evidence from multiple sources, as well as being able to make predictions, testing predictions, and all those other things that go along with what is known as 'science'. Now, I have noticed a number of people that promote the fundamentalist viewpoint misrepresent evidence to try to 'disprove' the age of the earth, the validity of radiometric dating, and a lot of other 'scienency ' things. However, their sources are vapid , and their understanding is vacant.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 25 by Goat]

Well, if you say so, and H. agrees -- that makes it so.

And that's good enough for me.

Wait -- can I try?

"Microbes to Men Evolution is a failed theory, which has taken on the attributes of a hoax, in its systematic suppression of evidence that discredits it; and its promotion of speculation as fact -- 'settled science'.

The universe could not have originated by random, unguided, "natural" causes -- it requires a Creator who does not have a beginning (i.e., is "eternal"); transcends and subsumes nature; and has Mind, Intelligence, and Will, in order to construct the Information (the opposite of randomness) that we observe everywhere we look at the natural order.

Microbes could not have assembled themselves by random, unguided processes. Nor, once assembled, could they acquire the uphill increases of information in the genome required to turn into Men.

The only possible explanation for the "world" -- the dimensional reality in which we all exist -- is creation by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Being. The only dispute is in regard to the actions of this Being in the creative process.

Science undertaken in regard to origins and history of the universe, and this planet, without this firm understanding and epistemological view, leads to erroneous conclusions, and is thus invalid."

There.

I hope that doesn't make you gentlemen too "shock up" (a Freudian slip, betraying true sentiment? )

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 25 by Goat]

Well, if you say so, and H. agrees -- that makes it so.

And that's good enough for me.

Wait -- can I try?

"Microbes to Men Evolution is a failed theory, which has taken on the attributes of a hoax, in its systematic suppression of evidence that discredits it; and its promotion of speculation as fact -- 'settled science'.

The universe could not have originated by random, unguided, "natural" causes -- it requires a Creator who does not have a beginning (i.e., is "eternal"); transcends and subsumes nature; and has Mind, Intelligence, and Will, in order to construct the Information (the opposite of randomness) that we observe everywhere we look at the natural order.

Microbes could not have assembled themselves by random, unguided processes. Nor, once assembled, could they acquire the uphill increases of information in the genome required to turn into Men.

The only possible explanation for the "world" -- the dimensional reality in which we all exist -- is creation by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Being. The only dispute is in regard to the actions of this Being in the creative process.

Science undertaken in regard to origins and history of the universe, and this planet, without this firm understanding and epistemological view, leads to erroneous conclusions, and is thus invalid."

There.

I hope that doesn't make you gentlemen too "shock up" (a Freudian slip, betraying true sentiment? )

I would like to reject your un-evidenced preaching and unsubscribe from your news letter.

I would assume that words such as this tickle your ears, but unfortunately, until shown otherwise, they are empty meaningless claims. It shocks me that you would offer up such statements as the ones above without considering the fact you have not established a basis for the words.

Microbes turned into men? It would be nice if you would educate yourself on human evolution before posting in the science sub forum about it.
:yapyap:

[Wyvern]

"Microbes to Men Evolution is a failed theory, which has taken on the attributes of a hoax, in its systematic suppression of evidence that discredits it; and its promotion of speculation as fact -- 'settled science'.

Considering after a quick search the only sites that use the term microbes to men in regards to evolution are creationist sites I would say you are correct. However the actual theory of evolution is another matter entirely. Please provide some of these examples you allude to of suppressed evidence that refutes evolution.

The universe could not have originated by random, unguided, "natural" causes -- it requires a Creator who does not have a beginning (i.e., is "eternal"); transcends and subsumes nature; and has Mind, Intelligence, and Will, in order to construct the Information (the opposite of randomness) that we observe everywhere we look at the natural order.

Microbes could not have assembled themselves by random, unguided processes. Nor, once assembled, could they acquire the uphill increases of information in the genome required to turn into Men.

The only possible explanation for the "world" -- the dimensional reality in which we all exist -- is creation by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Being. The only dispute is in regard to the actions of this Being in the creative process.

Other than the obvious argument from incredulity you are employing could you provide some evidence from a noncreationist site which backs up your claim? I find it strange how you have no problem accepting the idea of an infinitely complex creature such as god just is while at the same time have problems fathoming self organizing molecules which is firmly rooted in chemistry.

Science undertaken in regard to origins and history of the universe, and this planet, without this firm understanding and epistemological view, leads to erroneous conclusions, and is thus invalid."

It's bad science to start at the conclusion and then attempt to make the available evidence fit your bias.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 28 by Wyvern]

Quote:
Science undertaken in regard to origins and history of the universe, and this planet, without this firm understanding and epistemological view, leads to erroneous conclusions, and is thus invalid."

It's bad science to start at the conclusion and then attempt to make the available evidence fit your bias.

On that much, at least, we agree.

Why do you suppose those whose faith system involves the transformation of microbes into men do it?