God's role in extinctions?

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
And atheism is a religion. It is a system of beliefs with regard to the existence of God, and therefore qualifies as a religion.
I'm sorry to see you trying this puerile tactic. First of all, no religion consists in a mere belief: there has to be some sort of worship or other observance. From the absence of a belief in God, you don't get that. Atheism is the absence or rejection of a belief, not itself a belief. To say that not believing in God is a religion is analogous to saying that the rejection of New Age beliefs about reincarnation, auras, astral projections, and such crap is itself a New Age belief, or that not going to church is a form of religious observance.
 

B_Hickboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Posts
10,059
Media
0
Likes
60
Points
183
Location
That twinge in your intestines
I'm sorry to see you trying this puerile tactic. First of all, no religion consists in a mere belief: there has to be some sort of worship or other observance. From the absence of a belief in God, you don't get that. Atheism is the absence or rejection of a belief, not itself a belief. To say that not believing in God is a religion is analogous to saying that the rejection of New Age beliefs about reincarnation, auras, astral projections, and such crap is itself a New Age belief, or that not going to church is a form of religious observance.
Hmmm... You may be right...
 

joshua_ste

1st Like
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Posts
72
Media
5
Likes
1
Points
43
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
It's really stange to see people on television & Facebook say about the Japanese victims: "We'll pray for them".

If there were actually an omnipotent active God who inserts himself into the lives of praying humans, couldn't he have stopped an earthquake in the first place? An an ensuing tsunami? And a partial nuclear meltdown?

Christians pray over the aftermath of earthquakes, famines, plagues, floods, hurricanes, droughts, disease... The idea is that God can DO SOMETHING. But there is never any real evidence that anything is done or that God has the foresight and power to avert tragedies in the first place.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Numerals inserted for reference.
I have been wondering [1] what the creationist (of any religion) response is to the fact that c. 99.9% of all the species that have ever existed on this planet have become extinct?

[2] It doesn't seem very successful for an omniscient, omnipotent God, even one that moves in mysterious ways.

[3] Do you think maybe that we have been a little forsaken?

[4] Also - does anyone know how to get off this deathtrap?
(1) Your insertion of the qualifier "of any religion" makes me uncertain of what you mean by "creationist." In the US, and in general in English-speaking countries, the term refers to those who profess to believe the narrative of the creation of the world in the book of Genesis. Among these are so-called "old-earth creationists," who believe that the word "day" in the Genesis narrative is meant figuratively, so that a Biblical "day" could be millions or billions of years, and "young-earth creationists," who believe that "day" means a period of 24 hours and that the earth is about 6,000 years old. This article from February of 2010 in an Internet publication called Faking News attributes to "leading creationist Rich Hawkins" a theory of "intelligent recall"; but I can't even verify that there is such a person. The title of the publication leads me to suspect that he is fictional.

Since young-earth creationists deny that there is any compelling evidence of evolution or of the earth being more than a few thousand years old, I am sure that they will also deny that there is any compelling evidence that 99.9% of species that have ever existed are extinct. I don't know what old-earth creationists think about the matter.

But if by "creationist of any religion" you mean simply anyone who believes that the universe is the creation of a deity (which, I believe, is not how the term is commonly used), then I see no reason why such a person should have any particular view about the extinction of species, any more than he or she should have a view about the cratering of the moon. It's a question of natural science, not a question of religion. It is only because some—unfortunately, probably most—religious people think that their scriptures and their lore are sources of knowledge of the natural world and its history that they think that they have a religious duty to have a particular opinion on such matters.

(2) "It doesn't seem very successful for an omniscient, omnipotent God, even one that moves in mysterious ways." I have never felt the force of this claim. I don't see why an omniscient and omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe should make a universe different from this one. You might elaborate on this intuition of yours, because I don't share it.

(3) "Do you think maybe that we have been a little forsaken?"--"you" here being directed at the creationist, of course. I don't see why the creationist should think that the extinction of other species means that our species is forsaken.

(4) "Does anyone know how to get off this deathtrap?" I don't know whether this question is meant seriously. Surely you get off "this deathtrap" when you die. Easy.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
I have been wondering what the creationist (of any religion) response is to the fact that c. 99.9% of all the species that have ever existed on this planet have become extinct?

It doesn't seem very successful for an omniscient, omnipotent God, even one that moves in mysterious ways.

Do you think maybe that we have been a little forsaken?

Also - does anyone know how to get off this deathtrap?

Er, the fact is 99.9% of species haven't become extinct

The Species Problem
How many species concepts are there? | Science | guardian.co.uk

There's no agreement on what a species is. It's pretty much a chicken & egg dilemma. If something evolved(or let's just say mutated) from something its parents, but could still procreate with the old - it's not a new species. Furthermore, if we use an extremely vague definition, then we haven't discovered 90% of the estimated unknown different types of life on the planet.

On the plus side, we're getting near to a level of knowledge where we could recreate extinct organisms through their DNA.

Which means that none of them would really be extinct. Just in storage until someone is curious enough to see what they taste like.

Which is probably why some went extinct to begin with:wink:

PS Is Rich Hawkins the flip side of Richard Dawkins?
 
Last edited:

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
PS Is Rich Hawkins the flip side of Richard Dawkins?
I suspect so: when I tried to find further information on a Rich Hawkins who had something to say about creationism, I mostly found pages on Richard Dawkins.

By the way, the sources that you cite do not address the question of what proportion of species have gone extinct. I recognize that there is a problem of individuation, but surely on any workable conception of species, most species that have ever existed are now extinct.
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
By the way, the sources that you cite do not address the question of what proportion of species have gone extinct. I recognize that there is a problem of individuation, but surely on any workable conception of species, most species that have ever existed are now extinct.

No one knows!

Re: How many animals have become extinct?

The difference is now we are keeping some alive, despite the fact that they should be gone,gone, gone!

Here is one of the very funny, healthy reasons that the Kakapo, a bird that zoologist Mark Carwardine wanted to see & help protect, might have lost its biggest fan!:biggrin1:

YouTube - Shagged by a rare parrot - Last Chance To See - BBC Two

If you'd watched the whole prog in context, you'd have wet yourself by now!
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I had the rare privilege of coming from a long line of irreligious people. None of my grandparents observed any religious principles aside from baptism and a very occasional service on Easter or Christmas Eve. If asked, they'd have said they were Christians who choose not to affiliate with a specific church, which were for weddings and funerals.

At no point was anything like "God's Will" spoken as an explanation for anything by my grandparents; in fact, such expressions were actively derided as illogical and incurious. The Bible was considered an ancient piece of literature, not as a guidebook to anyone's life or the problems that arise in it.

My mother, whose religious education remains a mystery to me (her mother was a closet atheist, her father was a completely lapsed Catholic) nevertheless raised me to believe in the soul and in an odd sort of personalized God who loved me but who never seemed to have any effect over my physical life, no matter how hard I'd pray. My parents went church shopping, decided that the Episcopals had the nicest buildings, and attended haphazardly. 99% of the time, my father would take my sister and me alone, as my mother rarely attended services.

The crisis came when my youngest sister, ten years my junior, contracted Eastern Equine Encephalitis as an toddler and emerged profoundly disabled. My mother simply couldn't accept that the kind and loving personalized God in whom she'd taught us to believe could allow such a thing to happen to her: and by "her", I mean my mother, not my sister actually living in highly diminished circumstances.

My take-away, which came in stages throughout my early teens when all this happened, was twofold: first was get a grip, grab a mop and clean it up 'cuz shit happens; you'll have the rest of your life to worry about whose "fault" something may or may not be. Second was that this personalized God was most probably the figment of my narcissistic mother's more lurid imagination: a kind of Santa Claus who delivers life's presents and, when you've been "bad", life's lumps of coal.

To this day, the greatest challenge I have when dealing with my mother is the fact that everything, no matter how profound or trivial, is somehow all about her, and usually a punishment. As her parents were not sociopaths, and her sister manages to deal quite fine with life's bumps (and who is an outspoken atheist), this propensity for narcissistic delusion and life-long grudge-holding, blaming and punishment comes, I suspect, from her deeply held (and deeply flawed) belief that God hates her.

My own spirituality is my own matter; it exists, but I don't often discuss it. However, I cannot bring myself to believe in my mother's Santa-like, sinister, personalized God. That myth destroys many more lives than it illuminates and enhances.
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Given the current state of world affairs this particular "Christian" is of the opinion that the o.p.'s query, albeit tinged with pessimism, is a legitimate observation, worthy of serious contemplation.

Faith should welcome such introspection, imo.
 

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
52
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
There's no agreement on what a species is. It's pretty much a chicken & egg dilemma. If something evolved(or let's just say mutated) from something its parents, but could still procreate with the old - it's not a new species.
Not true. Horses and donkeys are separate species but they can mate to produce a mule. Mules cannot breed with other mules making them inviable offspring.
Furthermore, if we use an extremely vague definition, then we haven't discovered 90% of the estimated unknown different types of life on the planet.
...types of life on the planet today.

Given the number of extinction level events our planet has undergone (5 in the last half billion years) it is a safe bet to say that over 80% of species ever present on earth have gone extinct. Add to that the amount of time since the last such event for different species to have evolved and faded out and I don't find the estimate of 99.9% to be much of a stretch.

I find it odd that you'd acknowledge the 90% that we haven't discovered yet but not consider how many more existed in the billions of years prior that we may never learn of.

FYI - base extinction rates prior to humans has been calculated at 1-2 species per year (not counting E.L.E)
The rate has been calculated at 100 -10,000 species per year over the last century (based on an estimate of 10 million existing) from deforestation alone.
Humans are creating their own extinction level event.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Not true. Horses and donkeys are separate species but they can mate to produce a mule. Mules cannot breed with other mules making them inviable offspring.

As I said - there is absolutely no agreement on what a species is, or even if species exist. Blame biologists! 10 years ago, scientist were adamant that Neanderthals were an entirely different, practically mute homonid that could not mate with Homo sapiens sapiens. Now all of a sudden, they could talk, & 4% of us share their DNA.

That's despite no common ancestor being correctly identified, & them not being around very long at all.

Given the number of extinction level events our planet has undergone (5 in the last half billion years)

Well we don't know that either. Could be more could be less - & we've only guessed at ages - we've got no real evidence of anything half a billion years ago, only things we say are correctly calibrated to say that things are half a billion years ago - where we also make enormous assumptions about radiation levels, & huge amounts of probablistic determination. We're extrapolating data from at best 1000 years ago, & using that retrospectively toward day 0. Interesting, yes, helpful, yes, true -hahahaha.

it is a safe bet to say that over 80% of species ever present on earth have gone extinct. Add to that the amount of time since the last such event for different species to have evolved and faded out and I don't find the estimate of 99.9% to be much of a stretch.

I'd agree - but there's absolutely no proof!

I find it odd that you'd acknowledge the 90% that we haven't discovered yet but not consider how many more existed in the billions of years prior that we may never learn of.

I didn't - I said if you used the vaguest definition.


FYI - base extinction rates prior to humans has been calculated at 1-2 species per year (not counting E.L.E)

Yeah - this is just crap though. In a world where they estimate 90% of "variants" or species are undiscovered, the 1-2 figure is without any factual, or even realistic basis. Statistically, it's meaningless. It's just anthropogenic hate.

The rate has been calculated at 100 -10,000 species per year over the last century (based on an estimate of 10 million existing) from deforestation alone.
Humans are creating their own extinction level event.

Quite probably - but the greatest extinction level events would still be caused by an asteroid hitting the planet, a supervolcano, magentic poles swapping (poss). There's also an ignorance of the vast numbers of species that now rely on human habitation.

If you believe in evolution - like a bad horror film, the mutants take over, & everything becomes extinct. It's the natural order.

However, as I mentioned - if you have one creature's DNA, you can replicate it - so nothing need
ever be extinct (that we actually know of).
 
Last edited:

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
52
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
As I said - there is absolutely no agreement on what a species is, or even if species exist. Blame biologists! 10 years ago, scientist were adamant that Neanderthals were an entirely different, practically mute hominid that could not mate with Homo sapiens sapiens. Now all of a sudden, they could talk, & 4% of us share their DNA.

That's despite no common ancestor being correctly identified, & them not being around very long at all.
What you're talking about is the possible misidentification of a species based on new evidence and NOT there being any confusion regarding the definition of the term.

Well we don't know that either. Could be more could be less - & we've only guessed at ages - we've got no real evidence of anything half a billion years ago, only things we say are correctly calibrated to say that things are half a billion years ago - where we also make enormous assumptions about radiation levels, & huge amounts of probablistic determination. We're extrapolating data from at best 1000 years ago, & using that retrospectively toward day 0. Interesting, yes, helpful, yes, true -hahahaha.
Understood. You don't argue the occurrence of the E.L.E.s you just want to be a twat and quibble over precision. I assure you that that the methods used, even if off by millions of years, are still reliable when it comes to the order of events. So is the naked eye. Fossils found layers below the sediment left by an asteroid impact aren't likely to have been from a time after the impact.



I'd agree - but there's absolutely no proof!
There certainly isn't any proof to the contrary. Short of having someone exist in all times and places counting them all there can't ever be proof.

Gillette said:
I find it odd that you'd acknowledge the 90% that we haven't discovered yet but not consider how many more existed in the billions of years prior that we may never learn of.

I didn't - I said if you used the vaguest definition.
And if we used the strictest definition your statement would have changed how? 89.9% 88.5%?
It doesn't change your failure to take into account the vast number of species eliminated by these extinction level events.


Gillette said:
FYI - base extinction rates prior to humans has been calculated at 1-2 species per year (not counting E.L.E)

Yeah - this is just crap though. In a world where they estimate 90% of "variants" or species are undiscovered, the 1-2 figure is without any factual, or even realistic basis. Statistically, it's meaningless. It's just anthropogenic hate.
It's actually being quite generous since they're basing it on there being 10 million species. If they used actual known numbers of species existing compared to known numbers of species gone extinct the rate would be higher for the base rate and far more damning for the current rate.

Quite probably - but the greatest extinction level events would still be caused by an asteroid hitting the planet, a supervolcano, magentic poles swapping (poss).
You forgot solar flares.
These would be faster, certainly, but extinction level is extinction level however gradually it happens. The ice age should be proof enough of that.

There's also an ignorance of the vast numbers of species that now rely on human habitation.
That's not evolution. It's not even adaptation. Every animal found in the urban environment, right down to the pet goldfish, is able to survive in a natural habitat.

If you believe in evolution - like a bad horror film, the mutants take over, & everything becomes extinct. It's the natural order.
If this was sarcasm it's ironic because that is precisely how it happens. Evolution does begin with mutation and the ones best adapted to their environment do take over from the ones that aren't adapted as well, the ones that aren't adapted at all go extinct.

However, as I mentioned - if you have one creature's DNA, you can replicate it - so nothing need
ever be extinct (that we actually know of).
1. Chromosomes degrade over time so Jurassic cloning is unlikely to ever happen, amber trapped mosquitoes or no.
2. Should we, in the future, be able to clone something that is more recently extinct, for the purposes of this discussion happening now they are currently extinct.
3. Should we in future manage to clone a species viably it will not change the fact that the species did go extinct in the first place.

Good luck convincing the scientific community that they should replace "extinct" with "on hiatus".
 
Last edited:

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male

I don't know what everybody's arguing about. All the answers can be found here: Creation Museum

Be sure to take the virtual tour of the 'Biblical History' exhibits. They prove beyond a shadow of doubt that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Plus Adam is hawt! :P