Intelligent design and extinctions

OP,

Your original question just causes people to run in circles because the anti-creationist school of thought is essentially one school. Variations in opinion are relatively minor. Creationists on the other hand are often quite different in their opinions of the creation/creator.

So you end up with a group of people who essentially believe the same thing debating another group who don't agree amongst themselves. Doesn't make for a very good debate.

To have any serious debate you must define God. In any case I'll reply to your post not to try to prove the existence of a creator, but to offer some different suppositions and perspectives.

As some have pointed out, the Bible says the earth was "good", not perfect. So what was God's purpose? Let's assume that this planet was created specifically for what we call modern man, and that this isn't just extreme arrogance. Then let's assume that God wishes for man to progress in knowledge and understanding, but only in a line upon line context.

As hunters and gatherers the next gain in knowledge would lead us to agriculture and to permanent construction. But relatively recently our "advancement" would require what we call the industrial revolution. Without oil, gas, petroleum, etc. we would never have advanced as far as we have today. These extinctions you refer to have provided us with the necessary fuel and an earth suitable for the life of modern man.

I'm not trying to be rude but your point is irrelevant to many creationist believers. You need to remember that they believe the earth was created for man, not for all the other species. Therefor, extinction of other species as we know it simply makes the earth more suitable for the inhabitants it was specifically created for, and at the same time providing the fuels necessary for incredible advancement.
 
Quote from armoured saint:

One of the worst case of 'curve-fitting' i've ever seen Cache

run another backtest w/o those anthropocentric biases/assumptions :D
More...

It is curve-fitting to you because you don't accept the idea of a creator.

Throw out the anthropocentric assumptions? That is exactly the point! Why should any believer be expected to throw out something they see to be obvious?

Consider the following. There is a huge school of thought out there preaching efficient markets and the technical analysis is nonsense. Conversely, you develop a trading system based on fast stochastics. This relationship seems obvious to you so you perform a back-test assuming this relationship to be true.

Someone from the efficient markets school comes along and tells you that you should throw out the stochastics assumption because it is curve-fitting and you'll never realize the truth of random markets with that assumption. Do you throw out the assumption that seems obvious simply because someone else holds a different opinion?

So why would I throw out an "anthropocentric" assumption simply because you don't believe it? In any case, my post seems to have succeeded. The intent was to point out that extinctions aren't necessarily contrary to religious belief. Many believers say the earth was created FOR man. Using the death of any animal or plant as a argument against creationism is pointless because nobody ever claimed the earth was created for the other species.
 
Quote from Cache Landing:

The intent was to point out that extinctions aren't necessarily contrary to religious belief. Many believers say the earth was created FOR man. Using the death of any animal or plant as a argument against creationism is pointless because nobody ever claimed the earth was created for the other species.
More...

What's next, a special place on earth FOR a special race of man?

It may be how the maker of this world thinks. It may be how man thinks. It may be how bioengineers think while nursing man to supremecy. But this is not how God thinks.

All of God's creations are created equal to himself and given everything. He does not impose limits on anything. To do so would be cruel and unloving. He does not create things with stomachs that must constantly be attended to. He does not create an environment in which one thing must die for another to live. He does not evolve or test his creations. They are perfect from their inception.

There is no partiality with God. There is no special love he gives to some and not to others. Nothing is special when all is equal. Clearly, God's kingdom is not of this world.



Jesus
 
Quote from Cache Landing:

So what was God's purpose? Let's assume that this planet was created specifically for what we call modern man, and that this isn't just extreme arrogance. Then let's assume that...
More...

If your original assumption is false, it won't help to build on it and make more assumptions based on the false one. I will grant you, the world did have a purpose in it's original inception. As it turns out, the purpose was meaningless. It has since been given a new purpose by a mindset that supercedes it's inceptional mindset.

Let's define arrogance as the belief that one of God's perfect creations can make itself into something other than the perfection that God created. Arrogance is the idea that it's possible to change God's creation...privatize it, make it one's own, turn it upside down, and call it "the kingdom of God". That would classify this world as a form of arrogance. Not to worry, all is forgivable.

Man is the effect of this type of arrogance. He merely symbolizes it.

Jesus
 
Quote from acronym:

There's much to suggest dinosaurs weren't all reptilian, and that there were very likely a handfull of larger mammals around, but that's nitpicking given the periods of time involved.

Come to think of it-what is a mass extinction?
More dinosaur species, as near as anyone can tell, became extinct during the age of the dinosaurs, than at the very end-theres much to suggest the biodiversity was actually fairly slim at that point compared to what is known of previous epochs.

Further, depends what you mean by "thinking" beings-theres no question some birds are incredibly clever, demonstrating all the social awareness, empathy, most of the supposed traits of people. And if birds are the ancestors of dinosaurs, some of them at least, then who knows, maybe it was a step backwards from tool making, the ONLY thing separating man from supposed animals.
More...

Yup. True enough, it's distinctly possible there were small endothermic dinosaurs and that they evolved into birds.

During the dino era mammals tended to be small nocturnal insect-eaters; they were prey and were at a disadvantage when they got too bulky. Placental mammals didn't appear until after the big dino die-out; it's possible that this placental factor is as important as the mammalian brain structure in qualifying mammals as the hypothesized Designer's next project or phase of development. The more powerful bond between mother and offspring helps provide the more complex animals with support through their longer maturation periods.

Anyways, back to them birds..

I saw a PBS special on animal intelligence once. Some ice-fishing guy was pissed off because a poacher was stealing any fish he hooked at an unattended hole. He knew he'd been robbed because he'd come back and find the hook and line laying on the ice and no fish. He lay in wait to see who the sneaky bastard was; it turned out to be a crow. The crow would wait for the telltale tugging at the line, pull the line up, yank the fish onto the ice, work the hook out of its mouth, then fly off with it.
 
God could not create anything that is not perfect, or else He would not be perfect. If God is perfect and eternal, then by definition, anything He creates must be perfect and eternal.

Not even Stu can defy this logic.

This is the "like from like" principle which says that anything coming from God must be exactly like Him. Pure non-dualism is not willing to compromise on this principle. Rather, it says that anything coming from God must be exactly like Him.

Since there is nothing in this world that is perfect or eternal, I was able to see it for what it was - nothing. But I also knew that it appeared for a reason, and that it was a trick to keep people away from the truth of God and his Kingdom.

Jesus
 
Quote from I am...:

God could not create anything that is not perfect, or else He would not be perfect. If God is perfect and eternal, then by definition, anything He creates must be perfect and eternal.

Not even Stu can defy this logic.

This is the "like from like" principle which says that anything coming from God must be exactly like Him. Pure non-dualism is not willing to compromise on this principle. Rather, it says that anything coming from God must be exactly like Him.

Since there is nothing in this world that is perfect or eternal, I was able to see it for what it was - nothing. But I also knew that it appeared for a reason, and that it was a trick to keep people away from the truth of God and his Kingdom.

Jesus
More...

Can an omnipotent, omniscient "being" or "state" have a separate and distinct existence in time/space?
If God does exist, and It has a separate reality then God has a distinct boundry.
The boundry b/w Itself and It's surroundings.

Boundries have properties, measurable and FINITE.
But how can omnipotence be infinite AND finite simultaneously?

There is a logical conundrum to the existence of a God as a separate reality. :confused:
 
Quote from armoured saint:

Can an omnipotent, omniscient "being" or "state" have a separate and distinct existence in time/space?
If God does exist, and It has a separate reality then God has a distinct boundry.
The boundry b/w Itself and It's surroundings.

Boundries have properties, measurable and FINITE.
But how can omnipotence be infinite AND finite simultaneously?

There is a logical conundrum to the existence of a God as a separate reality. :confused:
More...

Separate existence in time/space is a "state", as in, state of mind. The idea of God as a separate reality is a state of mind that seems to make boundaries. I say "seems to" because boundaries must be an illusion. An unlimited mind can pose the idea of limits, and impose limits on Itself to the degree that It believes in limits. The boundary is not between Itself and It's surroundings. It is always between Itself and a belief about Itself. The belief does not change the unlimited nature of the mind. Therefore, it is not possible for the infinite to to be finite simultaneously except the infinite is somehow masked, unable to recognize Itself. Or rather, unwilling to recognize Itself.

The belief that both can be true can be described as dualism, and requires a split mind to believe it. The split implies a boundary. But is a boundary made of belief truly a boundary? Dualism must therefore be a delusion.

Belief within an infinite mind has effects. The question is: Are the effects able to change reality?

Those caught up in the effect may swear on a stack of Bibles that the effect is real and of God. But the truth remains true, leaving the effect out in the cold. The effect is an impossibility. It has never truly existed and never will. It merely witnesses to the power of belief, the power of God, the freedom of God...but not the Will of God. And in this game, Will is everything.

The phrase, "heaven and earth will pass away" means that the concept that there can be both heaven and earth will pass away. Earth and it's boundaries will simply vanish. Heaven will remain as it always has been and always will be. This is God's Will.

Jesus
 
Quote from Cache Landing:

So why would I throw out an "anthropocentric" assumption .... Many believers say the earth was created FOR man
More...

You would have to throw it out because there's no evidence for it. Just like you throw out any trading system which doesn't work in testing. Right?

By the way, I know a few believers. Mostly United Church types. Very enlightened, very nice people, not the militant types you see on here. They would scoff at the idea that the earth was 'created for man'. That suggestion is too ignorant to be commented on (although I apparently just did :) ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top