Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ The End Of Species, how does creationsism deal with extinction of species?

[Yorzhik]

Since god is all knowing and a powerful then must be his intent for species to go extinction. Am I confused>

And from Sisyfos:

Your answer implies that istans assumption that since god is omnipotent and omniscient it is within gods plan to let species be extinct is wrong or confused.

Could you be more specific? In what part lies the confusion?

Is not god omniscient?
Is not god omnipotent?
Is it not within gods plan to let species be extinct?

No; God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. He doesn't know the future exhaustively do to free will. And the very act of giving free will is to give up some power. None of the "Omni's" are in the bible.

[Bruce V.]

And from Sisyfos:

No; God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. He doesn't know the future exhaustively do to free will. And the very act of giving free will is to give up some power. None of the "Omni's" are in the bible.

Hi Yorzhik,

I disagree.

God is omniscient and omnipotent.

IMHO time is not a constraint for God. He sees the beginning and the end. Time is like a forth dimension and we live in a 3-D world.

So yes we have free will, but God is in control. It is a paradox.

Bruce

[Bruce V.]

First part is for me obvious but is not necessarily so for the creationist. From the current scientific (yes this is consistent with evolution) view it is a conclusion based on the evidence that all living things will die. By the same standard of argument that has been put forward at this forum in several other threads there is no "empirical evidence" of death of the currently living, so there is no proof that any of us will die.

The second part I'm not so certain about. This depends in a bit on where you go from abiogenesis to evolution. It is not certain that that pre-evolution phases needed death or if that the death-concept is really applicable. 

On the other hand one could actually say that evolution requires death IF one considers that the amount of resources that has been and to almost full extent is available to life as we know it. If there was another process that would give room to new individuals that would work as well, but as it seems the world is quite crowded.

Again, evolution is highly dependent on death, so I would rather say that death leads to evolution. The second part we agree.
But then we have the question of adam. If extinction is part of life, there was not life before the fall of Adam.
So what we are debating is actually the degree of freedom of the biological system?
I will not take the debate here about freewill but I would agree that "will" of life created determines what will survive. But that can only be one part of it. There also is the part of fitness. The extinct species must be in a sense not fit for survival. From a design point of view I only see 3 options then. 1. God made a design that was bad and the earth is unchanged. 2. God made a good design given earth at the time he designed it.  The world then altered and the design became bad. 3. God is constantly redesigning stuff(but I would suspect that this would fall under the "no puppets"-argument) .  1 or 2 then. Are there any other options?
In either way from a design point of view the number of species on earth will be constantly lower and lower.

I get a bit confused when you use freewill and fate in the same paragraph as these concepts i my mind seem contradictory. Fate seems to imply meaning and purpose which is rejected by the notion of freewill. There is a problem with having a plan and not having puppets. Where do you draw the line?

Hi Sisyfos,

The Bible does not provide an answer on why species go extinct. The Bible does say that after the fall we had weeds and disease. Life is short and struggles and hardships are part of the system God created. This makes no sense to an atheist who sees life as temporal: We live we die and that's it. God created a world with struggles and hardships to create character. The character we gain on earth is eternal gold. So bad things happen, God allows them to happen and it has eternal purpose. (long subject with too many tangents)

I see your point. That evolution is based on the survival of the fittest and expects the less fit to go extinct.

I also see your point in the fossil record. As I stated before the fossil record makes no sense to me. It does not follow either an evolutionist or a creationist model IMHO. It is highly stochastic where complete mature species pop up without any evolutionary pathway only to go extinct. This is very frustrating and hard to understand. Jason 777 has a much better understanding on fossils than I do.

Bruce

[Ron]

Well, what a open minded way to start a topic. I mean ecologists might say extinction has something to do with, well, ecology, or rather, changes in ecology.

Let me ask you a few questions McStone;

What was the question, and who was the question asked of? Stick with the OP, or start your own thread with your own questions, and quit attempting to derail this one...

[menes777]

Well, what a open minded way to start a topic. I mean ecologists might say extinction has something to do with, well, ecology, or rather, changes in ecology. You mean to tell me, Ron, that before the "fall", the ecology of the world was in a perfect none-threatened state, where carnivores were herbivores, bacteria did not grow, parasites did not parasitise, viruses did not exist and natural disasters did not happen? All because of the bible?

Quite seriously Ron, this is a woefully inadequate world view to hold. It is entirely without scientific merit. Why, the very fact that your cells contain mitochondria proves, without doubt, that life has always been in a state of intense predation and competition. Can you even think of an ecological system more "perfect"? You'll find that niches, without human influence, are exploited quite efficiently. Jesus Ron, there is life even living on hydrothermal vents, totally isolated from sunlight, "the fall" and religion-induced misunderstandings of the world.

This is one question that creationism has not adequately explained (or the creationist just dodges the question). I suppose that T-Rex used those giant teeth to smash pumpkins and sharks used those jaws to eat Seaweed? Of course plants have to die for animals to be able to eat anything. Then you get the Kent H*vind explanation that plants aren't alive because they don't "breath".

These statements just gloss over the inconvenient fact that the digestive systems of carnivores and herbivores are different. They are suited for those animals to receive the maximum possible amount of nutrition for the types of diets that they have. It's not a matter of flicking one switch in it a meat eaters brain to start eating vegetables instead of meat. You also have to change their GI tract to suit that. Not to mention that the devices animals use to masticate also are suited to certain dietary needs. Humans can do both (and many other creatures) because we (and others) have all the parts necessary to receive the nutrition we need from whatever we eat.

Why can't herbivores becomes cannibals and survive off their own dead? If a carnivore can no longer hunt why not just eat plants? Why do shark's teeth constantly replace themselves? Is it because they would tear them out on a bit of kelp or on a thrashing creature in it's jaws? No questions there.

I think really the only explanation is that supernatural was involved. After the flood, god not only changed the eating habits of certain creatures, but he also changed their digestive systems and their teeth. He also made them scavengers as well that could dig deep into the earth to find carcasses rather than cutting into the thin populations of animals that were available directly after their conversion.

Death is so taken for granted now that when Genesis is read it's hard to find it believable. If god created all the animals with the ability to procreate and if you believe the literal truth of genesis then he did. And if there were no death you would have some serious population issues on your hands after any long period of time. Especially if animals were much larger pre-flood than they are now. There's only so much land that can go around. Either god had a plan to limit the amount of procreation that went on or he really didn't plan his creation to last very long.

Finally, you have to look at what went extinct (and sometimes why). Why did the dinosaurs go extinct; they should have dominated the smaller creatures right? Ok so you use the argument that the world was different pre-flood and they couldn't survive after the flood because they were so big. How about the smaller ones? How about certain types of horses or other mammals that aren't huge in size? I think creationists don't want to look at what went extinct because when you look at the particulars of what is extinct creationism looks more and more shaky.

[Yorzhik]

Hi Yorzhik,

I disagree. 

God is omniscient and omnipotent.

IMHO time is not a constraint for God.  He sees the beginning and the end.  Time is like a forth dimension and we live in a 3-D world. 

So yes we have free will, but God is in control.   It is a paradox.

Bruce

You hold the majority of Christian's position on the "Omni's", I'll agree.

However, I don't think it takes away from God not to be omniscient and omnipotent. And it also solves not only the paradox you refer to, but it solves a number of problems in discussions with atheists as well.

[jason777]

Being an essential part of the evolution process, extinction of unfit species is nothing that an evolutionist need to go to any length to fit into the big picture.

If evolution explains everything,then it explains nothing. There is no evidence of a "inferior" species. Living fossils prove,beyond a shodow of a doubt,that all species appear suddenly and go extinct from catastrophe or they remain the same even to this very day.

Where is this "so called" unfit cyanobacteria that went extinct because it was replaced by a superior strain? The fossil record shows us the complete opposite. Precambrian cyano. was twice the size of cyano. today.

In fact,uniformitairianism would'nt predict catastrophic extinctions only creationists would.

[jason777]

Finally, you have to look at what went extinct (and sometimes why). Why did the dinosaurs go extinct; they should have dominated the smaller creatures right? Ok so you use the argument that the world was different pre-flood and they couldn't survive after the flood because they were so big. How about the smaller ones? How about certain types of horses or other mammals that aren't huge in size? I think creationists don't want to look at what went extinct because when you look at the particulars of what is extinct creationism looks more and more shaky.

Dinosaurs were large reptiles. The question would then be,why did all the smaller reptiles survive,but not the largest ones? Although,there is evidence that some large dinosaurs may have survived,I would suggest that it's because the smaller ones were safe aboard the Ark,unless your willing to suggest that meteors only select certain species to kill.

90% of the fossil record is still alive today and even OE scientists agree that most of them were alive during the cretaceous.I don't have the exact numbers,and I don't think anybody does,but the number of species (plants,insects,and animals) that survived through the Dino. extinction surely numbered in the millions.

And the branching trees of diversity that evolution predicts could'nt be more opposite than what is actually found.Most all families show up suddenly with the highest diversity from the outset.

Most species of trilobites appear in the cambrian and then slowly disapear.



We see the same with nautiloids.They show up suddenly and the largest diversity is the past not the present.





The fossil record also shows 100 species of apes living contemporaneously,then suddenly,just a handful survive today.

http://www.primates.com/history/


This is the type of sudden appearance and sudden decrease of diversity that creation predicts.






Enjoy.

[billygould23]

Life is short and struggles and hardships are part of the system God created.

Bruce, I don't believe this is the system God created. The system God created was perfect without flaw or struggle or hardship. All those things are a direct consequence from the fall of man, not creation.

[jason777]

You hold the majority of Christian's position on the "Omni's", I'll agree.

However, I don't think it takes away from God not to be omniscient and omnipotent. And it also solves not only the paradox you refer to, but it solves a number of problems in discussions with atheists as well.

All things,even the ungodly,were created for God's glory.How can God fulfill what is written in scripture unless he controls your heart and mind. Remember what Jesus said about Paul "I will change his heart".He did'nt say he would give him a choice,he said what he will do by the power and authority that he has,not the choice that Paul made.

He is very much actively involved in everything,otherwise he would'nt be able to prophecy anything.



Enjoy.

[billygould23]

All things,even the ungodly,were created for God's glory.How can God fulfill what is written in scripture unless he controls your heart and mind. Remember what Jesus said about Paul "I will change his heart".He did'nt say he would give him a choice,he said what he will do by the power and authority that he has,not the choice that Paul made.

He is very much actively involved in everything,otherwise he would'nt be able to prophecy anything.



Enjoy.

Are you suggesting man does not have free will? and how exactly are the ungodly created for God's glory? ungodliness was a result of the fall, God didn't create ungodliness in the garden for his glory. Please clarify.

[Bex]

Are you suggesting man does not have free will? and how exactly are the ungodly created for God's glory? ungodliness was a result of the fall, God didn't create ungodliness in the garden for his glory. Please clarify.

I agree Billy.

God can bring about a change of heart, but nowhere in scripture have I found that He controls our minds and our hearts like we are robots. He even invites us to a change of heart! He warns us against impurity in the mind/heart.

Otherwise one might as well state that a child molester is only a child molester because his mind and heart is controlled by God.

No, evil is not of God. However, can God make good come out of evil? Yes! That is why we have hope because no matter what evil a person does, no matter what devastation as a result, the one whom trusts in God and prays can be assured that He will bring good out of even the worst circumstances.

Edit. This is actually taking this thread right off topic and into biblical/scriptual debate. I apologise for adding fuel to the fire with this. Perhaps these posts could be moved into the appropriate section?

[jason777]

Are you suggesting man does not have free will? and how exactly are the ungodly created for God's glory? ungodliness was a result of the fall, God didn't create ungodliness in the garden for his glory. Please clarify.

To understand the fall in the start of the bible,you need to move to the end of the bible to see why.

The book of revelation tells us that those whose names are in the Lambs' book of life were written there from before the beginning of time.Yes,even before Adam was created,God had already planned the end.In fact,it was all setup to bring Christ into the world and to use the fall and the ungodly as examples to the righteous God has chosen.

You may think it's unfair,but the Holy Spirit,through Paul said "Can a lump of clay say to the potters hand,why did you form me this way"?

Free will is given,but spiritual sight is given to those God has chosen.

Jesus said "I praise you father,because you have hidden these things from the learned and the wise and have revealved it to babes".

Another proof was when a man asked Jesus "What sin has this man commited that he is blinded" and Jesus said to him "He was born blind so that God may be glorified" and Jesus healed him.

How could God glorify himself if no one needed to be healed? How could God prove his love for us unless he sacrificed his only Son? Otherwise,his love would be nothing but empty words and not undeniable action. Our weaknesses demonstrate his strength,our unfaithfulness exalts his faithfulness,our unrighteousness is his righteousness "As it is written,let God be true and every man a liar".



Enjoy.

[jason777]

God can bring about a change of heart, but nowhere in scripture have I found that He controls our minds and our hearts like we are robots. He even invites us to a change of heart! He warns us against impurity in the mind/heart.

Otherwise one might as well state that a child molester is only a child molester because his mind and heart is controlled by God.

No one who continues in their sin has any part with God. The change of heart requires a miracle from God,so that no man may boast of his own righteousness.



Enjoy.

[Darkness45]

God can bring about a change of heart, but nowhere in scripture have I found that He controls our minds and our hearts like we are robots. He even invites us to a change of heart! He warns us against impurity in the mind/heart.

Otherwise one might as well state that a child molester is only a child molester because his mind and heart is controlled by God.

No one who continues in their sin has any part with God. The change of heart requires a miracle from God,so that no man may boast of his own righteousness.
Enjoy.

But there is still a choice; repent or continue to live in sin. God is willing and able to help anyone as much as they need, but that person still needs to accept the gift.

[Bex]

But there is still a choice; repent or continue to live in sin. God is willing and able to help anyone as much as they need, but that person still needs to accept the gift.

AMEN! Though I am fully aware that without His grace, we would not be able to do so! So I agree with you both.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

[Sisyfos]

This is the type of sudden appearance and sudden decrease of diversity that creation predicts.
Enjoy.

I took your reply down to this as it is the condensed form of your post.
Thank you for clarifying how you see this matter.

First I want to make sure I get you correctly:
Is it your position that god a number of times through history put lots of entirely new and diverse species on the planet and that they then fought among themselves for survival to avoid extinction? I.e. the unfit species actually got extinct?

If so I have a comment and a question I would like your opinion about:

C: The only thing differing between your view and the evolutionist view is how the species come about. I thought that it actually was the extinction part that was the problem for religious people. It was for me. The shear luck involved in that we as humanity is not extinct.

Q: Gods way of tossing out a couple of 100 species of apes and seeing which one survives seems to be nothing but design by trial and error. What comes to mind are all the creationsit arguments from purfect design and especially the watchmaker argument. Does not your view rather speak for a "blind" watchmaker?

Edit: grammar

[Sisyfos]

Hi Sisyfos,

Hi Bruce,

The Bible does not provide an answer on why species go extinct.  The Bible does say that after the fall we had weeds and disease.  Life is short and struggles and hardships are part of the system God created.  This makes no sense to an atheist who sees life as temporal:  We live we die and that's it.   God created a world with struggles and hardships to create character.  The character we gain on earth is eternal gold.  So bad things happen, God allows them to happen and it has eternal purpose. (long subject with too many tangents)

You are right, refering to god when you are an atheist does not make sense. So, no I don't see any divine meaning with struggles and hardships but I do see meaning from an evolutionary point of view for character. Character is closely connected to empathy and co-operation. Suffering in itself is also meaningful on a more basic level: Without pain, no respect for injury. There is a disease where you don't feel pain. Seems blissful but it is an extremely dangerous condition. Ever been to the dentist getting local anaesthetics? They then tell you not to eat since pain is what keeps you from chewing yourself.

I see your point.  That evolution is based on the survival of the fittest and expects the less fit to go extinct.

I also see your point in the fossil record.  As I stated before the fossil record makes no sense to me.   It does not follow either an evolutionist or a creationist model  IMHO.  It is highly stochastic where complete mature species pop up without any evolutionary pathway only to go extinct.

Well, here is the thing: All so called intermediates where complete mature species themselves. But why go back to the fossils? Take us humans instead:

1. The number of bones in humans is not the same in all individuals:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bones_of_the_human_skeleton
2. The vermiform appendix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Function.
Does this indicate that we are an incomplete species? In what direction should the appendix go for us to be a complete species?
Now, be careful when you refute this example, since if you answer that the appendix is not evidence of incompletion since it could just be that we haven't found the function of it yet, you imply that there is no way that we could identify an incomplete species by examining its anatomy. The same argument would always apply.

What I think you actually mean is that it seems strange that at some points some species can undergo very fast AND diverse development in physical appearance, and you are correct. One clue is that how we actually look as individuals is due to both genome AND environment. Just look at trees living in windy areas where the wind tend to come from only one direction.. Now the genome can undergo changes that have large consequences in parts of the DNA that has only minimal effect in some environments but are very important in others.

Also when a favourable variation in a species breaks through it does so in a small population and lateral drift of the genome has much larger impact. This leads to possibly more changes fast and these do not necessarily have to be beneficial but can also be somewhat worse than the first mutated species as long as the advantage with respect to the original species exists.

This is very frustrating and hard to understand.  Jason 777 has a much better understanding on fossils than I do. 

Bruce

[jason777]

I took your reply down to this as it is the condensed form of your post.
Thank you for clarifying how you see this matter.

First I want to make sure I get you correctly:
Is it your position that god a number of times through history put lots of entirely new and diverse species on the planet and that they then fought among themselves for survival to avoid extinction? I.e. the unfit species actually got extinct?

If so I have a comment and a question I would like your opinion about:

C: The only thing differing between your view and the evolutionist view is how the species come about. I thought that it actually was the extinction part that was the problem for religious people. It was for me. The shear luck involved in that we as humanity is not extinct.

Q: Gods way of tossing out a couple of 100 species of apes and seeing which one survives seems to be nothing but design by trial and error. What comes to mind are all the creationsit arguments from purfect design and especially the watchmaker argument. Does not your view rather speak for a "blind" watchmaker?

Sorry you did'nt catch the prediction. Creationists predict a global flood ~4,500 years ago and that is when ~10% of all species went extinct.

If you study the fossil record,then you will know that 90% of it is still alive today. Evolution predicts that 99.999% of the fossil record is extinct,but their prediction fails.


Enjoy.

[jason777]

In what direction should the appendix go for us to be a complete species?

Just because you dont know the function of something does'nt mean you should just give up and say "It must be evolution".LOL

The function has been known for quite a long time.



http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/08/30907.aspx





Enjoy.