If evolution is true.....

[kevin]

the coherence of evolutionary theory does not contradict special creation, any more than the coherence of geology and geophysics can contradict a young earth model.

the ideas are independent, and since there is no intersection between the sets, there is no common ground where one model can be compared and found incompatible with the other.

[Case]

i get what your saying.

you don't think anything from one model could contradict the other? what about fossils of things like dinosaurs or other prehistoric creatures? i find it hard to sync up young earth creationism with the existence of fossils. but i don't really know enough about it to fully discount it.

[kevin]

it's all inherent in a necessary aspect of special creation that scoffers call "lastthursdayism," case. you and i have discussed it, but i'd be happy to summarize the ideas again.

[Case]

i do remember talking about it. i can understand that if a mountain was created instantaneously it would appear to be very, very old. i'm just skeptical of the mountain thats created instantaneously already full of fossilized organisms. something has to give.

[kevin]

i do remember talking about it. i can understand that if a mountain was created instantaneously it would appear to be very, very old. i'm just skeptical of the mountain thats created instantaneously already full of fossilized organisms. something has to give.

i can understand that. in my case, i don't make such a clear distinction between living organisms and inorganic creations. to me, a complex geomorphological feature such as a meandering river, with its point bars, levees, oxbows, elevated bottom, sedimentary sequences and arrangements and so on is as comprehensively integrated as a living organism.

i'm not convinced i know the difference between lving and non-living, anyway, at very small or very large scales.

but think of that mountain. make it out of limestone, like the himalayas.

--if the mountain is limestone, then the limestone will show limestone characteristics.

--limestone is mostly organic in origin, and if you look at it closely, you will see that it is actually composed of bones, shells, teeth, seaweeds, corals, barnacles, plankton, and foraminifera, as well as oolites and inorganic crystals. the mountain itself is made of the fossils you would be looking for, case, and you can see these fossils in road cuts, highway gravel, railroad ballast, and in decorative cobbles at your local subway sandwich shop.

fossils don't exist as something separate, contained within the rocks like the fruit in jello. with limes and dolomites and marbles, the fossils are the rocks, and the rocks are the mountains.

this was brought home to me very clearly years ago while i was walking down a cobbled beach on an island in the baltic sea. i looked down at the rocks i was walking on, and realized that they weren't "rocks." the whole substrate was octopus pens, fragments of algal mats, broken corals, ostracods, pieces of broken up shells, and crinoids, and ammonites, and clams and oysters. there weren't any "rocks," because the rocks were all fossils.

so i don't see much difference between an old looking mountain and an old looking fossil. eithger indicates either great age or the instantaneous and necessary appearance of great age.

[Garja]

So, you feel it's consistent that god would have created (essentially) billions of carcasses in order to create sand, rocks, ect?

[kevin]

how would you have done it?

[Argyle]

how would you have done it?

If I were an all powerful all knowing deity?
Better than this. :)

*waits for someone to accuse him of being arrogant*

[none]

how would you have done it?

Form every man out of dirt... and every woman from their ribs..

[kevin]

how would you have done it?

If I were an all powerful all knowing deity?
Better than this. :)

*waits for someone to accuse him of being arrogant*

wdll, argyle, then what *is* the better way to make a rock?

how would you do it better?

what is *better?*

[Case]

kevin, are you an advocate of YEC?

[Argyle]

Better than this. :)
*waits for someone to accuse him of being arrogant*

well, argyle, then what *is* the better way to make a rock?

how would you do it better?

what is *better?*

I would appeal to a material teleology to define a better state than what exists. For example, currently the only known intelligent beings in the known universe are likely to die within a cosmically quick period of time, and occupy and are able to survive on only the most infinitesimal fraction of all creation. From a teleological perspective it would appear to me quite unfortunate that so few entities which can reason and appreciate the cosmos should be allowed to do so and for such a short amount of time, and that so much unnecessary harm should befall them as they do so.

If only by improving any one thing along those lines, for example allowing for easier interstellar travel, or having planets which would safely sustain such populations of knowers of the universe in equilibrium rather than constant struggle. Assuming of course we are talking about, as I said, an all knowing all powerful deity. Which I do not need to be in order to conclude that this is not the best of all possible worlds from the standpoint of material teleology.

You are of course welcome to disagree with my teleology, but that is what I meant :)

[kevin]

kevin, are you an advocate of YEC?

no, i think it strains credulity, assuming what i believe to be true about god is actually true about god.

but i acknowledge that YEC is untestable, and therefore there is no scientific process that can demonstrate its truth or falseness.

[kevin]

Better than this. :)
*waits for someone to accuse him of being arrogant*

well, argyle, then what *is* the better way to make a rock?

how would you do it better?

what is *better?*

I would appeal to a material teleology to define a better state than what exists . . .

i understand your interest in postulating a world conforming to the things you consider important: in increase in reasoning, aesthetics, and equilibrium, and a decrease in harm and struggle.

but focus on YEC for a moment.

what makes a better rock? garja questioned the consistency of god arranging that contemporary rocks be made out of organic debris, and fashioning rocks during the creation event that appeared as end products of that process, even though they weren't.

is one kind of rock a better rock than another?

[Argyle]

i understand your interest in postulating a world conforming to the things you consider important: in increase in reasoning, aesthetics, and equilibrium, and a decrease in harm and struggle.

but focus on YEC for a moment.

what makes a better rock? garja questioned the consistency of god arranging that contemporary rocks be made out of organic debris, and fashioning rocks during the creation event that appeared as end products of that process, even though they weren't.

is one kind of rock a better rock than another?

If that rock would lead the only species which is capable of appreciating the universe to draw incorrect conclusions about it? It would seem somewhat akin to lying to them wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be better to leave evidence which clearly directs them to a complete understanding of the universe and their place in it, rather than to leave many bedrock layers of lies to confuse them? Am I missing something?

[Garja]

how would you have done it?

I have no idea.  I cant say that it would have ever occurred to me to simultaneously create, kill, and fossilize billions and billions of microscopic (and otherwise tiny organisms) so that I could make rock..... seems like the long way around to me.... kinda silly.

[kevin]

If that rock would lead the only species which is capable of appreciating the universe to draw incorrect conclusions about it? It would seem somewhat akin to lying to them wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be better to leave evidence which clearly directs them to a complete understanding of the universe and their place in it, rather than to leave many bedrock layers of lies to confuse them? Am I missing something?

maybe you are missing something.

your interest in a better world is measured strictly in terms of a human perspective, and more specifically, of a perspective of intellectual query. there isn't anything in your measure that includes another point of view-- that of god, for instance--for whom human understanding of creation may not be particularly important. or that of other entities of the creation, less curious ones, for whom the act of existing is reward in itself--plants, less intelligent animals, and so on. or with humans, the created artist, so to speak, rather than the created enquirer.

so your point of view is highly specific to your own situation, and therefore somewhat peripheral to my question.

if one assumes that a "better" world is one in which a logical satisfaction of human curiosity is paramount, then your view of what god should have done in creating rocks is of course valid. because when looked at from within the limitations of a human point of view, rocks certainly do seem deceptive. if we apply a uniformatarian view to their provenance, then it's absurd to suppose that an outcrop of ancient fossiliferous limestone could have come about in any way different from what we see in modern fossliferous limestones in the process of lithification.

yet if one assumes or concludes a divine creation based on evidence other than modern analogues, then the rock's appearance of great age is inevitable. because modern rocks do form under these conditions, and mountains do form under these conditions. so if a created mountain is to maintain a structural continuity with naturally-formed mountains (which is the case in christian scripture) then there is no other way for it to be.

Wouldn't it be better to leave evidence which clearly directs them to a complete understanding of the universe and their place in it, rather than to leave many bedrock layers of lies to confuse them?

why would this be "better," when there is a perfectly good explanation for YEC that is consistent with the idea of a created universe derived from other sources? one that contains no lies unless one attempts to impose an explanation that doesn't fit the facts?

[kevin]

how would you have done it?

I have no idea.  I cant say that it would have ever occurred to me to simultaneously create, kill, and fossilize billions and billions of microscopic (and otherwise tiny organisms) so that I could make rock..... seems like the long way around to me.... kinda silly.

none of these fossils were ever alive, garja. the rock was created, made up of sedimentary clastic particles of the same sort that are made today by fossilizing microorganisms.

how is making rock out of instantaneously-created fossils any more unbelieveable than making it out of instantaneously-created inorganic crystals, feldspars as opposed to dinosaurs?

what's the difference? the rock has to be made of something, doesn't it? if you're going to have a mountain, what else can you make it out of?

[Garja]

Okay, they weren't alive.... but they are dead animals right?  So the all powerful creator of the universe said "I want a rock here so I will make it out of trillions of tiny carcasses... In the future I will make these animals live, die, and fossilize naturally forming MORE of this rock, but this just seems like the best route for me to go with rock right here and now".

I mean, if you are going to say this do you also believe that fossilized dinosaur remains were also poofed into existence? That dinosaurs never actually roamed the earth?  Do you believe that oil and coal were just formed by God or that they are the remains of plants and animals from earlier in the earths existence?  Because there is exactly zero difference (objectively) between rock formed by trillions of dead micro-organisms, rock formed by large lizard-like animals, oil formed by similar organisms to the rock, and coal formed by long dead forests.

[kevin]

Okay, they weren't alive.... but they are dead animals right?  So the all powerful creator of the universe said "I want a rock here so I will make it out of trillions of tiny carcasses... In the future I will make these animals live, die, and fossilize naturally forming MORE of this rock, but this just seems like the best route for me to go with rock right here and now".

I mean, if you are going to say this do you also believe that fossilized dinosaur remains were also poofed into existence? That dinosaurs never actually roamed the earth?  Do you believe that oil and coal were just formed by God or that they are the remains of plants and animals from earlier in the earths existence?  Because there is exactly zero difference (objectively) between rock formed by trillions of dead micro-organisms, rock formed by large lizard-like animals, oil formed by similar organisms to the rock, and coal formed by long dead forests.

garja, what exactly is your difficulty with this? we're not debating whether god created the universe in one event, up and running and going strong. that's a separate question. i'm trying to find out where you're coming from in thinking one method of doing it is likelier than another.

So, you feel it's consistent that god would have created (essentially) billions of carcasses in order to create sand, rocks, ect?

yes. i believe it's consistent. what's inconsistent about it?

[Garja]

garja, what exactly is your difficulty with this? we're not debating whether god created the universe in one event, up and running and going strong. that's a separate question.

Actually thats very nearly exactly what we are talking about here.

Just so I know where you are coming from: (true or false)
1. God used trillions of dead carcases of plants and animals to create oil.
2. God used trillions of dead carcases of plants and animals to create coal.
3. God used trillions of dead carcases of plants and animals to create rocks shaped like rocks.
4. God used billions of dead carcases of plants and animals to create rocks shaped like bones of animals.

Inconsistent may have been a poor word choice on my part.... It does seem rather odd (and macabre) that God would for reasons unknown create trillions of carcasses in order to create rocks (when other methods of rock creation exist), knowing full well that humanity would interpret these rocks as being exactly what they look like - the accumulation of trillions of death things over billions of years.  Why exactly would a god, who WANTS humanity to know and accept him as Creator and Lord, create a world that LOOKS governed by natural means not necessitating a Creator.

[kevin]

okay, first, there were never any carcasses. god created limestone out of nothing, and the structural componets of limestone are fossils. youre having difficulty because you think god created plants and animals, then killed them to make limestone. thats not what scripture says. scripture says god created *mountains* and later god created *plants snd animals.* the limestone was created in situ with particles in it identical to those we call fossils.

next you say other methods of making rock exist. what other way can you suggest to make limestone?

last, you say god created a world that appears not to be governed by a creator.

what world is that?

[Garja]

Kev, your last post seems to have two opposite opinions at the same time. You said that god just "made the limestone", then you essentially said that limestone only forms with the death of billions of animals. You kinda seem to want it both ways.

And no, limestone has exactly one way to form- why do we need a god for this?

God "created" a world where everything looks to have developed over an extraordinarily long amount of time over billions of years.

Does god, in your opinion, just like to f%#* with mankind? Is that his primary purpose? Just making limestone, fossils, and fuels that only LOOOOK extremely old, but really aren't.

Please answer my questions about oil, coal, and animal-bone-shaped rocks.

[kevin]

garja, i have it both ways because both ways are essential to creationism. youre missing this point.

if god created the earth from a state of nothing or of dizorganized chaos, to a state of orgNized process, in motion, with everything in an intermediate stAte, then yes, god created "ancient" limestone AND the modern processes thT continue to make modern limestone today.

this is inescapeable. this is how creationism must work if it is to be in acvordance with scripture. fossils, and coal, and oil, and natursl gas,  and rivers, and mountsins, and the hydrogrologic cycle, and partially decayed radiometric vlocks, and tree rings, and stsrs appsrently half way through their billion year life times, and the universe psrtiallyexpanded, and the ssteroid belt, and on and on.

when you set a clock, does somethong force you to put the numbers at 00:00 every time? or can you start your clock at noon?

acvording to creationists, god didnt create the universe to f**k with mankind. he made the univrrse at the intrrkediate state described in genesis, and he left christian scripture to explain it to anybody who was listening.

this is not what i believe, but as i alresdy said, creationism cznnot be refuted by material means.

[Garja]

And THAT is why creationism is stupid.

[kevin]

or atheism.

take your pick.

[Garja]

*Exaggerated sigh.

Creationism/Evolution is a completely separate discussion from theism/atheism.

However, we pretty much have to agree at this point that, if your god exists, hes kind of a d**k.  What with all that creating oil, rocks, coal, bone-shaped rocks here on earth that, as far as we can tell, ONLY come through a very particular set of geological occurrences over extremely long periods of time; AND, god has to go to the trouble to create an unfathomably large number of photons en route to earth so that we have a nice starry night as opposed to the handful of stars we would have in our night sky within 10k light years.

[kevin]

you know, garja, im generally reluctant to discuss the logical implications of creationism with nonbelievers because you guys just dont get it.

im a beliver in uniformitsrianism, the idea that the processeswe  we see at work today are the same processes that worked in the past. in a nontheist world, uniformitsrianidm is extended back indefinitely, until the nontheist invokes some sort of msterialist deus ex machina to explain nature. the current favorite is the singularity of the big bang, supported by strphen hawkings learned speculation that something msy indeed have inevitably come from nothing. creation wiyhout creator.

in the theist world, we generally have a belief in special creation of some sort. if this belief is held as a premise, then lasthursdsyism is as inevitable as water floeong downhill. no nontheist protestations of a lack of aesthetic appeal makes a ny difference at all. it simply is, inevitably. typically, nontheists bemoan the unlikliness of creationism. unlikely compared to what? to the unlikeliness of any paryicular alternate? the features of creationism are not up for evaluation if one accepts theistic creation in thefirst place. the resl question is whether there exists a god who creates, and if he does, why.

[Happy Evolute]

you know, garja, im generally reluctant to discuss the logical implications of creationism with nonbelievers because you guys just dont get it.

Some non-believers may not get it, but I certainly do.

The logical implication of creationism is that there is a creator, which is also its premise. This is called a circular argument, and therefore tells us nothing at all.

If you want to waste your time wandering round in circles that's fine by me so long as you keep out of trouble and don't frighten the horses.

[kevin]

your thinking is ass-backwards, HE. you don't get it at all.

creationism is implied by a prior belief in a creator, not the other way round. unless you have a prior belief in a creator that comes from other reasoning, discovery,or revelation, you have no reason to look for a logical consequence of that belief in your view of the world.

if you want to waste your time parading your ignorance of cause and effect, that's fine by me. i'd think a little longer before you post on the subject next time, though.