God's role in extinctions?

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

^^^^^^^^
Winning!!!

 

[B_Hickboy]

We are a two-man koan.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

We are a two-man koan.

M'you?
Inside joke, HB.

 

[B_Hickboy]

M'you?
Inside joke, HB.

Winning!

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Winning!

Uv kors.

 

[JustAsking]

This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it, OP.

I would say that the doctrines of the denominations that represent about 90% of Christianity accept the findings of modern science on the same basis that science does. In which case, extinctions have to be acknowledged by them and discussed as part of their theology.

The topic that relates to what God is doing or not doing in the natural world, vis a vis misery and suffering in general is called Theodicy. It happens to be the topic of the oldest book in the Bible, The Book of Job.

Interestingly, The Book of Job ends up concluding exactly what Bbucko has concluded, which is "shit happens".

I have to say that I also agree with Bbucko that the notion of a personal God who does things for you personally, or has a specific plan for you is not very universal. But it is a strong notion for Christian fundamentalists. It is also very annoying.

The way that I reconcile natural processes in the universe and God's creative work in the universe is to accept the former on an empirical epistemology, and the latter as an article of faith. This is how mainstream Christians believe that God is the author of all things, but yet work like Fr. LaMaitre (Catholic Monsignor and Cosmologist) to develop The Big Bang theory, or write textbooks about it like Catholic and biologist Ken MIller. Or like evangelical Christian Francis Collins who is the head of the NIH, and was the head of the Human Genome Project.

Mainstream Christians do not read every aspect of the Bible literally. So they do not require the Book of Genesis to define the parameters of Creation as a blow by blow account. Evolution and The Big Bang are as much part of God's Work as everything else.

To bring it down to a succinct point, although I have no empirical evidence that God created the universe or that God continues to work creatively in the universe, I pray for the people of Japan. Why? Because the Bible says to pray frequently, so I do as a matter of faith.

I know this sounds irrational and it should. Faith is irrational from an empirical point of view.

 

[B_crackoff]

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.

You really didn't read the articles did you? Because of the lack of a coherent accepted structure or conceptual framework it all seems pretty vague. I'm only repeating what the boffins say here!

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.

It's still an assumption. The whole story of the dinosaur extinction in x amount of years, & how they were replaced by (bloody huge)mammals is just a mythos. It's a human necessity to put things into patterns.Asteroid? I've also heard a Gulf caldera?You know full when that in a couple of decades, that a new theory could become accepted as fact. E.g Europeans are now accepted to have been in the US 20,000 years ago - 10 years ago they weren't, & they had to make up a way for this to have occurred.

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.

Exactly!

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.

I didn't call it evolution, I was pointing out how even the most bizarre creatures now depend on humans - including all those on the endangered list.

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.

Or piss off to another place!


1. Chromosomes degrade over time so Jurassic cloning is unlikely to ever happen, amber trapped mosquitoes or no. Not impossible though!
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. Would we call that unextinction? It's pretty irrelevant if you can bring something back - they're not likely to know.

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

Now that is actually a lovely idea - far more cozy!

Unfortunately, the 99.999% extinction of all species ever, suggests that at up to 100 million around today, 100 TRILLION have existed.

Should you find a list of 99.999 trillion extinct species let me know.

The claim is laughably without any fact, & ultimately undermines its aims, because ultimately, by its frame of reference, mankind could only ever cause 1 in a million to become extinct.

Which isn't a lot!:biggrin1:

Please understand, I take purely a philosophical view on science. My background's in Math, so I understand fully the assumptions (& some of them are a bit wild) that go behind the theories. However, I also understand the politics, & have been blessed with having encyclopedias going back 100 years which detail an enormous amount of scientific beliefs that are regarded as stupidly baseless now, yet were seen as axiomatic then.

It's all interesting, but the words probably, & possibly should appear rather more in scientific discourse.

 

[Calboner]

We are a two-man koan.

The audience goes wild, clapping with one hand.

 

[JustAsking]

But there is an interesting theology that speaks directly to species extinction. It is the theology of Kenosis. Kenosis is the notion that God is not interested in wielding obvious forceful power in the universe. That God has created a Creation replete with natural processes and he is not all about thwarting them right and left.

The Book of Job ends by answering Job's lament about why he ended up a diseased pauper. God answers that question by pointing to the aspects of creation itself. He implies that Job could never possibly understand the vast chains of causality that operate in the universe, so most events that occur would seem to Job as being arbitrary and capricious.

God dismisses all the folk-religion advice that Job's friends give Job, such as "everything has a purpose", or "God has a plan for you", and so on. God instead points to creation itself as if to suggest that God is letting the universe do its own thing.

But there is an even more powerful parable of kenosis, which is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. As Luther said, whatever we can know about God is that which is revealed to us through Jesus. And consider that Jesus is God made human. The Creator of the Universe comes into his creation as a helpless baby born to an unwed ignorant mother in the middle of nowwhere in a pig trough. The he lives an uneventful life until his last three years when he preaches to vagrants and wanders the dusty roads with them, still pretty much in the middle of nowhere.

Then he allows himself to be arrested, tortured, and then nailed to a tree out of the petty local politics of the church leaders and the petty and viscious national politics of the Governor Pilate. Either way, he makes no attempt to resist. God himself submits to the arbitrary and capricious cruelty of the natural processes of his creation.

If nature kills God, why is it a problem that it kills God's creatures?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

... there is an even more powerful parable of kenosis, which is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. As Luther said, whatever we can know about God is that which is revealed to us through Jesus. And consider that Jesus is God made human. The Creator of the Universe comes into his creation as a helpless baby born to an unwed ignorant mother in the middle of nowhere in a pig trough. The he lives an uneventful life until his last three years when he preaches to vagrants and wanders the dusty roads with them, still pretty much in the middle of nowhere.

Then he allows himself to be arrested, tortured, and then nailed to a tree out of the petty local politics of the church leaders and the petty and viscious national politics of the Governor Pilate. Either way, he makes no attempt to resist. God himself submits to the arbitrary and capricious cruelty of the natural processes of his creation.

If nature kills God, why is it a problem that it kills God's creatures?

But the operative word, surely, is "if."

 

[Gillette]

I have been wondering what the creationist (of any religion) response is to the fact that any of the differentiated lifeforms 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?

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.

Would we call that unextinction?

Sure. It acknowledges the fact that they did go extinct. Michael Jackson may well have had his brain downloaded to computer to be revived in a cloned body someday, it won't change the fact that he's dead to us now.

You'll note that I've changed the OP so as not to distract you with those pesky terms and numbers. Would you like to participate in the actual topic of the thread now?

If nature kills God, why is it a problem that it kills God's creatures?

This is beautifully elegant, JA.

I want to say though, that since Christ was killed by men that the nature element isn't going to be visible to many. Particularly not by creationists who likely see themselves as above nature because God saved the best for last in man's creation and created them, not the beasts, in his own image.

 

[Gillette]

Could this be a divine revelation?
Hick doesn't believe in evolution?

The OP addressed creationists of any religion. No mention of Christianity was made and yet he took it as a personal affront.

Holy cow.

 

[Drifterwood]

But there is an interesting theology that speaks directly to species extinction. It is the theology of Kenosis. Kenosis is the notion that God is not interested in wielding obvious forceful power in the universe. That God has created a Creation replete with natural processes and he is not all about thwarting them right and left.

If nature kills God, why is it a problem that it kills God's creatures?

Dogma doesn't sit well with a dice throwing deity.

I have an old friend who helped put the Hubble telescope out there. He is a christian. His view would be that our growing knowledge has simply grown the awe factor exponentially. He would also wonder why some of his fellow christians would deny the new awesomeness of existence in favour of a largely plagiarised 3000 year old creation myth.

Whether this existence process was started by "God" or not, may well be moot, or a non purposeful mental pursuit, but to my mind it begs the questioning of some fundamentally held beliefs and human centric practices. By which I mean that some wish to hold on to this special god relationship, they want to be a big fish in a small pond, rather than one strand of the incomprehensible number that have existed, exist now and will exist without us in the future.

 

[offside]

"God" is Santa for grown ups

 

[midlifebear]

I know as a personal fact that the idea of "God" that is bandied about in this thread is a mean drunk with a penchant for gin. Whenever he runs out of gin he physically abuses his wife and kicks the Earth, hence the extinctions.

 

[B_crackoff]

... some wish to hold on to this special god relationship, they want to be a big fish in a small pond, rather than one strand of the incomprehensible number that have existed, exist now and will exist without us in the future.

But we are special:smile:. The probability of intelligent, self aware life among 10 sextillion stars is extravagantly remote (apparently - who really knows:tongue.

That makes us bloody big fish that can't swim in a never ending ocean.

The OP addressed creationists of any religion. No mention of Christianity was made and yet he took it as a personal affront.

DW does have a history of Christian baiting!

You'll note that I've changed the OP so as not to distract you with those pesky terms and numbers. Would you like to participate in the actual topic of the thread now?

It doesn't help. Humans are differentiated. Tens of thousands of generations of fruitflies being bombarded with different artificial stimulus has only resulted in more fruitflies.

The maths is good. If 99.9999% of species are extinct, we can only get rid of one in a million, & there remains zero observable proof of even a significant percentage of 100 trillion species.

One thing that never gets discussed is how many new species must arrive each year - some of which also would have to be a result of human activity.

 

[Gillette]

It doesn't help. Humans are differentiated. Tens of thousands of generations of fruitflies being bombarded with different artificial stimulus has only resulted in more fruitflies.

I don't see your point. Neither fact changes the validity of the question.

The maths is good. If 99.9999% of species are extinct, we can only get rid of one in a million, & there remains zero observable proof of even a significant percentage of 100 trillion species.

Your initial complaint was that the numbers were wrong but now you're okay with them and yet somehow still quibbling over it.

One thing that never gets discussed is how many new species must arrive each year - some of which also would have to be a result of human activity.

If you knew how to use google you'd see that rates of speciation are being discussed and studied. It doesn't, however, apply to the questions raised in the OP, particularly not if you attribute their creation to human, rather than divine, intervention.

Would you now like to address the original question raised in the OP or would you like to continue trolling the thread by nit picking things that don't change the validity of that question in any way?

 

[Calboner]

I don't see your point.

For me, that applies to Crackoff's postings throughout this thread. I thought that the original post was a less than compelling theological or perhaps "atheological" argument, but at least it had a reasonably clear point. Crackoff seems to be just kicking up dust.

Drifterwood, I'm still hoping that you will address my response to your OP (post #27).

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

For me, that applies to Crackoff's postings throughout this thread. I thought that the original post was a less than compelling theological or perhaps "atheological" argument, but at least it had a reasonably clear point. Crackoff seems to be just kicking up dust.

Everywhere ... on any thread he touches.

 

[Drifterwood]

Drifterwood, I'm still hoping that you will address my response to your OP (post #27).

I will. I am in a product development meeting at the moment.