Christian Evolutionists?

[Xru]

Xru . . . you are an exceptional sophist. You can cloud any issue. You are amazing. The smoke you can generate would make the smoke generators on any WW II Destroyer look like a child's toy. Actually, I think you are ShadowLosers sockpuppet and you are clouding everyone's mind. How do you do it. You are the MAN.

Thank you . . . thank you ladies and gentlemen. I have studied long and hard to achieve this level of . ... . *Xru's eyes firtive look around to see if mossy's PIN is poised over his head* . . . slinging smoke. It has been a long grind and I feel I deserve a long vacation.

SLosers abilities to cloud minds are nothing compared to my ability to confuse anyone with mere words. I AM sophistry. I live sophistry.

I can claim no credit for this astonishing ability. God gave me a gift and I use it to the best of my ability.



Crowd jumps to its feet and starts chanting, "Xru's da man. Xru's da man. Xru's da man."

Xru hangs his head in semi-stunned humility.

"Thank you," Xru mutters. "Thank you."

[Ansgar Seraph]

Okay that seems very reasonable.

Let me ask you this? What would a world look like if all the "unnecessary" and "complicating" elements were removed to comform to the 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth.

There would be no mountains. Continents would be static. There would be little erosion. Certainly, the State of Arizona would be drastically different . . . no Grand Canyon. Soil and geology would be uniform or almost so. There would be no oil deposits. No petrified trees. No beaches? How long does it take to create a beach? I don't know.

There would be very limited anthropology, or archeology.

I'm just trying to imagine this. Land would be virtually a flat plain . . . almost characterless compared to the real Earth. All unnecessary things removed . . . because God would have Created the Earth in the most effective and efficient way. No lost effort in unnecessary embellishments.

I'm just thinking out loud here. But this seems like an extremely boring world. Is it one I would want to live in?

Lastly, would there be any mystery? Seems to me, us humans love a good mystery.

I wouldn't have any logical problem with there being mountains in a functional world, especially if one desires certain weather patterns. We would not find marine fossils in those mountains, however, and would not find angular nonconformities which are a sign of geological folding.

Oil deposits could still be created but we wouldn't find fossilized remains in those deposits or partially decomposed plant life. There would be no petrified trees, though there could still be beaches, as those are fairly necessary for coastline.

Point being that there are so many little things present when we examine the big things that indicate an history of earth. We find so many impact craters, for instance, that have no business existing under the YEC framework — surely God could have just created the geological effects of the craters (e.g., Chesapeake Bay) without leaving evidence behind that suggests an extra-terrestrial impact. When we pile up the little things, the questions about big things become moot.

I agree that humans love a good mystery — but surely we have plenty to sate our thirst without inventing a trickster God!

—Sam

[Xru]

I wouldn't have any logical problem with there being mountains in a functional world, especially if one desires certain weather patterns. We would not find marine fossils in those mountains, however, and would not find angular nonconformities which are a sign of geological folding.

Now wait a minute here . . . you get to pick and choose? You don't have a problem with . . . . ? Come on.

So why stop with mountains? Why not the Grand Canyon just for fun? And yet now you will complain, God is a Trickster.

I have a problem with mountains even if you don't. How did they arise. Why aren't they flat like everything else? I know . . . God is trying to TRICK us!

Ya can't have it both ways AS, IMHO.

[phank]

I agree that humans love a good mystery — but surely we have plenty to sate our thirst without inventing a trickster God!

Ofr for that matter, any gods at all.

I was reading up on the Ussher chronology, and it seems at best contrived, and resting on any number of assumptions and theological conveniences. The whole exercise comes across to me as counting angels on pinheads. As an illustration of garbage in, garbage out, it has few equals.

[Xru]

Oil deposits could still be created but we wouldn't find fossilized remains in those deposits or partially decomposed plant life. There would be no petrified trees, though there could still be beaches, as those are fairly necessary for coastline.

Oil deposits can be created in 6,000 to 10,000 years? No.

Beaches are fairly necessary for coastline? Ah . . . AS . . . coastline exists independent of its nature. Coastline is where land stops and Ocean begins.

Point being that there are so many little things present when we examine the big things that indicate an history of earth. We find so many impact craters, for instance, that have no business existing under the YEC framework — surely God could have just created the geological effects of the craters (e.g., Chesapeake Bay) without leaving evidence behind that suggests an extra-terrestrial impact. When we pile up the little things, the questions about big things become moot.

I am talking of a world which according to your arguments of Tricker, that holds no Trickery, no details that could be construed as deceiving . . . God would not have created impact craters. And why create complicated coastal formations at all like Chesapeake Bay. That would be inefficient and unnecessary. It might make someone wonder why?

Assuming there would be rational and intelligent people in this world that would be curious . . . God would want to make the Earth as simple and plane as possible so as not to stimulate wonderment . . . for to do so would be to risk people asking hard questions and becoming confused. THEN God would be vulnerable to the charge of being a Trickster.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Now wait a minute here . . . you get to pick and choose? You don't have a problem with . . . . ? Come on.

So why stop with mountains? Why not the Grand Canyon just for fun? And yet now you will complain, God is a Trickster.

I have a problem with mountains even if you don't. How did they arise. Why aren't they flat like everything else? I know . . . God is trying to TRICK us!

Ya can't have it both ways AS, IMHO.

There's a difference between an unknown and a known event. If someone wanted to claim that God created the Grand Canyon ex nihilo, that could be logically consistent. But if I find a huge sediment deposit that indicates the GC was carved out by the Colorado River then I have a legitimate reason to reject the idea of an ex nihilo creation. God can carve out the Grand Canyon but it is not necessary for Him to leave evidence that the Colorado River did it over millions of years.

But, yes, I can pick and choose — someone in my position doesn't need to explain how [i]everything[i] that seems unnecessary truly is unnecessary. So long as I can make a compelling list of items then that list, however short, is valid to my point. A short list can be bracketed off, perhaps, and dismissed for a while . . . but the list is very large now.

If you have a problem with mountains, that's fine; explain why they are unnecessary. The question, remember, isn't "how did this event or thing occur" but rather "does the presence of this event or thing demonstrate an intention to deceive?" If mountains are necessary, their existence isn't a problem under seanD's paradigm. What is a problem for his paradigm, however, are all the little unnecessary phenomena like marine fossils in those mountains or angular nonconformities — things that don't just tell us that the mountain exists but that it has a history in deep time.

—Sam

[Xru]

Ofr for that matter, any gods at all. I was reading up on the Ussher chronology, and it seems at best contrived, and resting on any number of assumptions and theological conveniences. The whole exercise comes across to me as counting angels on pinheads. As an illustration of garbage in, garbage out, it has few equals.

I'm not sure what you are addressing her phank. The question is . . . why would God make a complicated world. If the world is complicated it is Trickery according to some that have posted here.

AS want to play God and add mountains. You want to dismiss the need for God all together.

I am offering you all a world that is free of any hint of deceit . . . and what do I get . . . nonsense.

AS complains because the would is complicated and doesn't make sense unless it seems rational and logical in his mind. I gave you a world and now YOU want to complicate it with mountains, oil, and sandy beaches. I don't like it. I reeks of a God who is giving us a world that shows AGE. He is a Trickster.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Oil deposits can be created in 6,000 to 10,000 years? No.

Beaches are fairly necessary for coastline? Ah . . . AS . . . coastline exists independent of its nature. Coastline is where land stops and Ocean begins.



I am talking of a world which according to your arguments of Tricker, that holds no Trickery, no details that could be construed as deceiving . . . God would not have created impact craters. And why create complicated coastal formations at all like Chesapeake Bay. That would be inefficient and unnecessary. It might make someone wonder why?

Assuming there would be rational and intelligent people in this world that would be curious . . . God would want to make the Earth as simple and plane as possible so as not to stimulate wonderment . . . for to do so would be to risk people asking hard questions and becoming confused. THEN God would be vulnerable to the charge of being a Trickster.

You are missing seanD's point — his paradigm is that all of these so-called counter-evidences can be explained by creationists because God had to make the universe "fully mature" in order that Man could thrive in it. The world had to be populated with animals and trees and running rivers. The stars' light had to be observable. Mountains and valleys had to exist. The Mediterranean Sea had to be full of water and fish.

So, yeah, you can have a coastline without a beach . . . but someone working under seanD's idea would say that beaches were necessary for men to catch food and park boats and sit under the stars enjoying the sea breeze. A beach is something that I would allow as logically consistent, not something I need to make my counter-claim.

I agree that God would not make impact craters under seanD's paradigm. He could, however, create bays teeming with life so that Man might thrive. Again, seanD's position necessitates that things like the Chesapeake Bay are the result of God making a "fully mature" world for Man. I don't need to explain why God would make the Chesapeake — I only need to point out that, if God created the Chesapeake, He is being deceitful by also creating evidence that makes it appear to be an impact crater.

—Sam

[Xru]

There's a difference between an unknown and a known event. If someone wanted to claim that God created the Grand Canyon ex nihilo, that could be logically consistent. But if I find a huge sediment deposit that indicates the GC was carved out by the Colorado River then I have a legitimate reason to reject the idea of an ex nihilo creation. God can carve out the Grand Canyon but it is not necessary for Him to leave evidence that the Colorado River did it over millions of years.

The assumption of Uniformity would indicate that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to make even if there were no sediment deposits.

But, yes, I can pick and choose — someone in my position doesn't need to explain how [i]everything[i] that seems unnecessary truly is unnecessary. So long as I can make a compelling list of items then that list, however short, is valid to my point. A short list can be bracketed off, perhaps, and dismissed for a while . . . but the list is very large now.

Well ya just lost me there. If you can assert to pick and choose then there is absolutely no reason for us to be having this conversation.

I can just as well assert that I can pick and choose and you have no recourse.

If you have a problem with mountains, that's fine; explain why they are unnecessary. The question, remember, isn't "how did this event or thing occur" but rather "does the presence of this event or thing demonstrate an intention to deceive?" If mountains are necessary, their existence isn't a problem under seanD's paradigm. What is a problem for his paradigm, however, are all the little unnecessary phenomena like marine fossils in those mountains or angular nonconformities — things that don't just tell us that the mountain exists but that it has a history in deep time.

I did not choose mountains. You did for "weather patterns." Why do you have a problem with no mountains?

You and others are arguing that our complicated world would be indication of God Tricking us if it were a Young Earth.

I gave an example of an Earth that would have no complications that could imply God is Tricking us. You don't want that world. You will not take your argument to the logical extreme which is ridiculous.

I don't support the YEC position. But I neither am willing to pin Trickster onto God because the Universe is extremely complicated and defies our ability to explain it. It's that simple.

[Xru]

You are missing seanD's point — his paradigm is that all of these so-called counter-evidences can be explained by creationists because God had to make the universe "fully mature" in order that Man could thrive in it. The world had to be populated with animals and trees and running rivers. The stars' light had to be observable. Mountains and valleys had to exist. The Mediterranean Sea had to be full of water and fish.

So, yeah, you can have a coastline without a beach . . . but someone working under seanD's idea would say that beaches were necessary for men to catch food and park boats and sit under the stars enjoying the sea breeze. A beach is something that I would allow as logically consistent, not something I need to make my counter-claim.

I agree that God would not make impact craters under seanD's paradigm. He could, however, create bays teeming with life so that Man might thrive. Again, seanD's position necessitates that things like the Chesapeake Bay are the result of God making a "fully mature" world for Man. I don't need to explain why God would make the Chesapeake — I only need to point out that, if God created the Chesapeake, He is being deceitful by also creating evidence that makes it appear to be an impact crater.

—Sam

I'm not arguing for or against the totality of SeanD's paradigm. Actually, I would find much more weight to arguments against the YEC view.

As I said above the only thing I am arguing against is pinning the Trickster label on God.

The fact that the Universe appears complicated does not convince me that the Earth could NOT be young.

At the same time reducing complications, whatever they are, to the logical extreme would make a very strange world.

That's all that I wish to point out. Is this a great argument that the world is 6,000 to 10,000 years old . . . I don't think so. Actually, as an argument it is pretty bad for that.

[Ansgar Seraph]

The assumption of Uniformity would indicate that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to make even if there were no sediment deposits.

But that's the difference between an assumption and evidence. If we're just left with competing assumptions, fine. But if there's compelling evidence, then seanD and RBerman are either left accepting that evidence or asserting that God also created it, making the charge of deceit valid.

Well ya just lost me there. If you can assert to pick and choose then there is absolutely no reason for us to be having this conversation.

I can just as well assert that I can pick and choose and you have no recourse.

Only if you have a valid reason for picking and choosing. My task is negative: I just have to show some cases to demonstrate that seanD's perspective is logically incoherent. Same as in science — we don't have to show that Newton's theory of gravity is insufficient in all cases, we only have to show that it is insufficient in some cases. But we don't get to simply assert that it's insufficient in some cases. Since I provided points of evidence as support for my counter-claim, my position is valid.

I did not choose mountains. You did for "weather patterns." Why do you have a problem with no mountains?

I allowed for the existence of mountains under seanD's paradigm. You, playing devil's advocate, sought to disallow mountains because you could question where they came from. Again, I'm allowing seanD's assertion on the topic of the existence of mountains so that I can demonstrate that, even given his assumptions, his position is still untenable.

You and others are arguing that our complicated world would be indication of God Tricking us if it were a Young Earth.

I gave an example of an Earth that would have no complications that could imply God is Tricking us. You don't want that world. You will not take your argument to the logical extreme which is ridiculous.

I don't support the YEC position. But I neither am willing to pin Trickster onto God because the Universe is extremely complicated and defies our ability to explain it. It's that simple.

It's not a matter of complexity. It's a matter of history. Adam, for instance, would still be a complex organism if he lacked a navel. Comparatively, the presence of a navel is a rather trivial addition. But it would be an appearance of history, even if it wasn't apparently complex. There's no functional reason for Adam to have a navel; the same is true of other natural phenomena that give an appearance of history which, if seanD's paradigm is allowed, provide strong evidence of a trickster god.

Again, the issue is not complexity. It's apparent history.

—Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Why assume that God is tricking us. I don't know his intention. I'm not supporting YEC, but my concern is that many posts seem to make assumptions as to what God is intending. This greatly concerns me. Only He knows his intention just as only we know our own intentions concerning our actions. I'm surprised at your assuming this lpot.

Xru, the Bible does infer to us something about the nature of God and from what we know about the Bible, we are told that God is love, God is just, and God can be trusted. In addition to this, we are also told that creation itself speaks to us about the nature of God as well as speaks of his existence. His exact intentions are somewhat unknown, but the problem with the argument that God made the universe and the earth to appear old is that it does challenge these key views of the Bible and makes God appear to be attempting to deceive us into believing something it isn't true, when that actually is against his nature according to the scriptures. Remember, we are told:

Psalm 23

The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
for his name’s sake.
Even though I walk
through the darkest valley,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.

You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
Surely your goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.

What does the bold part tell us? This tells us something about the nature of God, he is truth and leads us down the right path, so the question becomes, why would God attempt to deceive us into believing the earth and the universe is much older than it really is, when it appears that the scriptures tells us that is against his very nature? Of course, I guess somebody could argue that sin did this or these are tricks by Satan, but this would be a position that really isn't supported by the Bible and often times makes Christians out to be anti-science kooks and is often used as an argument against the faith. Doesn't this view kind of make Christianity out to be silly and even can be used to challenge the core beliefs that we Christians believe God is? Yeah, it can. Luckily for us, another solution is that the Genesis account is not literal history, but more is designed to tell us that God created the universe then it is to tell us the specifics about how he went about to this. This doesn't mean that the Genesis accounts are crap and can't be used to teach us important lesions (IE the dangers of working ourselves to death or the dangers of disobeying God), but it does help us deal with this little contradiction between an interpretation of Genesis, the nature of God as told to us by the scriptures, and the appearance of the age of the universe and earth. Besides, remember this, the rock of our faith is found upon Christ and not upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is where we should first focus our efforts before we move on more.

[Leonhard]

There would be no mountains. Continents would be static. There would be little erosion. Certainly, the State of Arizona would be drastically different . . . no Grand Canyon. Soil and geology would be uniform or almost so. There would be no oil deposits. No petrified trees. No beaches? How long does it take to create a beach? I don't know.

I don't think it would be that bad. In fact I think we could have all those things and more, the only difference would be that they would show no signs of having been layered down over a long stretch of time. There are plenty of ways that we could have a world with similar stuff as in this world. They would be different in many ways, but I don't think the only solution would be a boring flat plane. In fact that would be just one simple example out of unfathomable number of possible worlds. I don't see why God couldn't have marvelously sculpted the land like a master architect. So you'd have rock formations, but no strata. No stromatolites full of embedded precambrian life, no corals with anymore than a few thousand annual layers (or a couple of million daily laters). In the ground we would not find fossilized bones, because there would not be enough time for mineralization to occur, but there might be plenty of ordinary white bones. Coal, oil, and gas might be present, but perhaps not in the rough and moldy way we're used to. There's a lot of ways to store them, and if God was hand crafting the world I don't see why he should be limited in his ways of doing things. He could store the oil in perfectly spherical bubbles underground. He could have hollowed out an entire mountain and filled it to the brim with pristine gasoline, or ordered them in layers according to the various fracture products of crude oil. Or perhaps he'd make it harder and more challenging to find the valuables, somehow this seems more reasonable and satisfying. He could make caves in the ground for us to find and explore, which would be much larger and more intricate, than the ones we've have found so far. If you have the greatest deity directing things, there's no limit to the things you might discover when you dig down into the Earth. Everything allowed by the constraints of the natural laws in place, and perhaps quite a few not strictly allowed. City sized caverns, instead of the limitations imposed by having caves form naturally due to lava tubes emptying themselves.

I guess its a matter of imagination.

I won't argue the case about the inconsistency between holding that God created everything but that 'it just happens to look like it evolved naturally' or that he intentionally created the world with that in mind, and that conflicting with the idea of a God of truth creating a world that speaks to his existence. I think the bigger problem is that the creationist is forced to argue like this, because he can't give any other account for our world geology, biology or cosmology. There's no argument that can be given for why one should believe that God did it like this. The only way I can see how you'd save the interpretation is to either argue against the scientific case, or engage in post hoc reasoning, but the former -I think- can be shown to have failed beyond reasonable doubt and the latter isn't rational. Not unless you invite the possibility of anyone with any interpretation of evidence to engage in post hoc reasoning. With enough logic of that kind you could explain away the empty tomb if you wanted.

[seanD]

SeanD, I know I'm not (currently) a Christian and so what I have to say probably won't carry much weight with you. The first is that when you're trying to cast down on a scientific theory, or any ideology, by simple arguing that it was made by 'fallible human beings' then you're committing the logical fallacy of argument ad hominem; Its false because its made by crocked people. Well sure its made by crocked people, and so what? It might still have solid arguments going for it, as well as a truckload of good evidence. Its even possible that the reasoning employed from start to finish is such that if you became aware of it, you wouldn't find any fault with it. Secondly you yourself have to use your own senses, and your own reasoning to understand the Bible. The exegesis of ancient text and avoiding eisegesis, is a learned ability. You're not born able to interpret the book of Samuel, and from the little I know its quite a task at hand. If you're so open to casting doubts on scientists interpretations of nature, why not be open minded about biblical interpretations? I've seen several interpretations of Genesis which seems pretty consistent with the rest of the Bible, as well as the scientific models of the world.

I don't know you of course, and I'm sorry if I'm reading you the wrong way, but I'm assuming you yourself haven't actually examined these scientific theories. If you have I apologize and then we can argue science. I can understand though, that if for whatever reasons you find yourself committed to the truth of something like 7-day literal creationism, and you're not particularly aware of how the scientific theories play themselves out, then its easy to imagine that they're probably committing some sort of error (or several). However I don't think all Christians are going to have this freedom. Some are going be geologists, geochemists, evolutionary biologists (of various flavors from microbiology to paleontology) as well as cosmologists and astrophysicists. They're going to be knee deep in the science of these things, and are gonna examine the 'faulty logic' themselves, check out the evidence and hopefully will be doing some work of their own. I don't see how one could keep saying to oneself that 'There's probably some errors in these theories made by people weak of will and fearful of God, that will ruin all the conclusions hopelessly and an a sound interpretation of science consistent with my particular biblical interpretation', day after day throughout all of this if you're a Christian who's examined it and found the argumentation surprisingly strong. What should literal creationists say to that guy? That he should just ignore the sound reasoning, and know his Bible? Its not enough to suggest to that guy that there's enormous errors in the theories when none can be found. Sure there are updates to the theories and occasional rare paradigm changes, but nothing that changes that completely falsifies evolutionary, geological or cosmological history. The creationists I have seen who've tried to argue against the soundness of the conclusions have a track record of failing miserable. Yes that's an unfriendly thing to say, but if you can argue against it with and show where the faulty presumptions lie in the science, we can have a real discussion.

The whole argument about 'God making the world a few thousand years ago, but making it look like it evolved naturally for billions of years' just strikes me as pure post hoc reasoning. There's no reason to assume that this is true, other than to save a particular Biblical interpretation. There's no need to put fossils in the ground, or layered strata. There's no need to create dozens of different radioactive isotope clocks that all give the same time of sample formation. There is an infinite number of strange and wonderful ways God could have arranged the matter of the Earth that could never be accounted for naturally, that to just argue that he (for whatever reason) simple ordered them in this particular way is unbelievably unlikely. You would need some evidence that he was going for this, but there's nothing that indicates this in the Bible, nor have I found any conceptual analysis of God that would make this more likely than not.

That’s a fair point. And I’ve admittedly struggled with this myself. Since I believe the Genesis creation is true, I’ve often wondered why God allows a contrary view to be so powerful and predominant. I don’t believe evolution is true because I believe it’s unfalsifiable. The theory assumes too much than what the evidence indicates, and like you said, the theoretical paradigm merely shifts to accommodate problems and issues that arise with the theory (but that’s not something I want to get into here because the discussion doesn’t interest me anymore). However, there are also possibilities behind certain physical aspects of the universe, or alternative views other than YEC that wouldn’t necessarily change the Genesis creation. Because there is nothing anywhere in scripture that directly indicates the age of the universe, YEC is merely a theory itself. Theories are only plausible given certain presuppositions and assumptions are true. But I also think it’s a mistake for a Christian to use those possibilities as an accommodation to science other than to just take the Genesis creation at face value in spite of the inevtiable adversities against this. It could simply be that geologists, geochemists, evolutionary biologists, cosmologists and astrophysicists are being deceived or deceiving themselves. But I know this answer doesn’t satisfy the palate of a skeptic and is extremely presumptuous to them, which is why I don’t really intend on getting into any lengthy discussions with atheists in this thread, no offence.

[Xru]

But that's the difference between an assumption and evidence.

Ah .. . . AS . . . Uniformity is a fundamental principle of Science. It is the basic underpinning of all evidence.

If you are not familiar with such things then I don't think we are going to made any headway at all here.