Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

[Navigator]

Pen and Teller don't even pretend that they're doing science. Their purpose on that show is to entertain and inform (and express their personal opinions), not to perform scientific research.

Well I am glad you cleared that up. Someone on this board years ago insisted it was science and wouldn't budge on that one even that I basically retorted the same as you have done here.

If you want an entertaining TV series that performs actual scientific experiments, try watching MythBusters.

Yeah now there is a great example of fun science!

 

[Navigator]

This is a very interesting and important set of questions. Central among them is why, from a biological or ecological point of view, is there death? Because of its importance, I would encourage you to look into that question on your own. There are several prospective answers with varying degrees of scientific support that apply at different levels.

It is definitely possible for the cause of extinction to promote the rise of new forms. One clear example is the oxygen catastrophe that killed most of the algae in the sea (poisoned by oxygen that it generated as a waste product). The dead algae created most of the world's oil deposits, but more important, the toxic corrosive oxygen allowed animals to evolve.

Extinction itself (not the cause, but the actual event) also benefits new forms, by freeing resources. That's why it's often said that humans would probably never have evolved from mammals had the K-T extinction not occurred, because dinosaurs would have remained the dominant land species.

That's just a small part of the answer, though.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Sure it is. Point being it creates a less villainous idea of ID.

It may be that the process whereby something become too much of, a fail safe is installed to ensure that variety wins the position rather than domination of a single thing.
The domination produces something which eventually kills it while promoting something else.
Sometimes I wonder if that is what happened to the dinos. Green house effect due to big farts from dominating specie.

But it also implies that humans are on the way out in relation to dominating and creating a means for mass extinction of human form.

On with the next exciting event-string!

 

[John Jones]

[mercy snip]

I know that without science the Holocaust could not have occurred.

Ha!

Navigator, I've frequently found your arguments to be tedious, pedantic, barely coherent, and based on obstinacy and ignorance.

Keep up the good work.

 

[John Jones]

I am sorry.

I accidentally misinformed.

I meant to say good use of science and evil use of science. I said good science and bad science.

Bad science is this because it is claimed to be scientific but is really more entertainment and comedy (which is not bad entertainment and comedy) and cherry picking/stage setting, which is somewhat necessary for not bad entertainment and comedy but not so great as far as science goes.

1) I don't do youtube. It's a ******* waste of time.
2) You don't understand the discipline of science. This has been made obvious a dozen times if not more. You talk about science. You opine about science. You bloviate about science. but you don't understand it.

Any questions?

 

[John Jones]

Well I am glad you cleared that up. Someone on this board years ago insisted it was science and wouldn't budge on that one even that I basically retorted the same as you have done here.

Did you have some other, more worthwhile point to address besides what some unnamed poster said some time in the past about science, and how you victoriously chided him/her?

 

[Navigator]

Ha!

Navigator, I've frequently found your arguments to be tedious, pedantic, barely coherent, and based on obstinacy and ignorance.

Keep up the good work.

As long as you are bearing with me John Jones, it can't be all bad.

Who knows! Maybe one day I might say something tolerable to your sensitivities.

Stranger things have happened, as you might well appreciate.



Good science appeals to me. The idea of being forced to work for Nazi or suffer for not doing so can only attract the Hitler within.
If one actually managed to survive that and be well accommodated and even needed would do a lot to lift the burden of guilt at past choices and the consequences of those choices upon others in unfortunate ways.

I suppose.

 

[Navigator]

1) I don't do youtube. It's a ******* waste of time.
2) You don't understand the discipline of science. This has been made obvious a dozen times if not more. You talk about science. You opine about science. You bloviate about science. but you don't understand it.

Any questions?

Yes.

What are you talking about when you say 'science'. I think we differ there...

 

[Navigator]

Did you have some other, more worthwhile point to address besides what some unnamed poster said some time in the past about science, and how you victoriously chided him/her?

Actually I was not victorious and he/she was chiding me.

ETA

But you digress and I along with you.
You have been freely pestering me for so long now I sincerely think your issues need to be dressed elsewhere.

Perhaps a 'sandpit' thread thread can be created so's we can build castles etc together without disrupting other threads?

 

[NekoTheCat]

No reason either way to think they are true or false. We are dealing with ideas. ID ideas.

In relation to such ideas, burden of proof is only required when claims are made.
Ideas themselves are not claims.
Belief has nothing to do with it.
Evidence offered which still requires some form of belief is simply incomplete.

Incomplete evidence (sometimes referred to as 'compelling') is nothing solid to base belief upon. Once complete, what need is belief in relation to such evidence.

Belief is neither here nor there.

If you aren't actually making any claims about what one should believe regarding this issue and instead just view them as nothing more than "ideas" then I don't see what the purpose of a discussion here even is. Its an interesting thought experiment, just like all the other ideas I came up with earlier, but without any evidence or reason to believe it, nothing more. Our issue here appears to be that we have approached this issue from quite different perspectives. I was arguing about the logical consistency of the claim that a moral intelligent designer created or has some hand in life, along with what should be required to accept or believe such a claim.

I am however not so certain what exactly you were ever talking about now, particularly considering that when one is merely discussing "ideas" one can essentially pull a Texas sharpshooter, making any idea consistent with reality by simply adjusting the idea to fit it or of course by coming up with continual ad-hoc explanations.

I've no wish to talk about "ideas" in such a manner. Thought experiments are nice, but simple thought experiments are not what I was ever talking about. If I have interpreted you correctly here, then I don't really have anything more to discuss.

 

[bruto]

Yeas certainly! It is not evil humor.

I meant 'descendants'.

I was about to note that.

But in addition, are you not confusing the Star Spangled Banner with The Battle Hymn of the Republic?

 

[Navigator]

I was about to note that.

But in addition, are you not confusing the Star Spangled Banner with The Battle Hymn of the Republic?

I just goggled 'american anthem' and grabbed wiki link.

 

[Navigator]

If you aren't actually making any claims about what one should believe regarding this issue and instead just view them as nothing more than "ideas" then I don't see what the purpose of a discussion here even is. Its an interesting thought experiment, just like all the other ideas I came up with earlier, but without any evidence or reason to believe it, nothing more. Our issue here appears to be that we have approached this issue from quite different perspectives. I was arguing about the logical consistency of the claim that a moral intelligent designer created or has some hand in life, along with what should be required to accept or believe such a claim.

I am however not so certain what exactly you were ever talking about now, particularly considering that when one is merely discussing "ideas" one can essentially pull a Texas sharpshooter, making any idea consistent with reality by simply adjusting the idea to fit it or of course by coming up with continual ad-hoc explanations.

I've no wish to talk about "ideas" in such a manner. Thought experiments are nice, but simple thought experiments are not what I was ever talking about. If I have interpreted you correctly here, then I don't really have anything more to discuss.

Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

That's a question about the idea of an ID using mass extinction.


Opening Post

Whether one sees intelligent design in terms of old earth creationism or sees the hand of a divine architect behind to workings of evolution, as in theistic evolutionist belief, I see a real problem with mass extinctions. They're sloppy and wasteful. Consider the Permian extinction. A theistic evolutionist would likely argue that God had us in mind when He started the evolutionary ball rolling. Logically, then, the dominance of the synapsids, the mammal-like reptiles, in the Permian should have led directly into the age of mammals and the evolution of intelligent mammals, like us. Instead, the Permian extinction very nearly wiped out the mammal-like reptiles and dis placed them as the dominant megafauna. So, by the time they had produced mammals, these mammals had to spend the next 120 million years under the feet of the dinosaurs - until another mass extinction, at the end of the Cretaceous period, gave them the opportunity to reclaim dominance.

This all seems rather haphazard and chaotic. I'm interested in hearing from any believers - Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other - as to how mass extinctions fit into their idea of an intelligent designer. Is this designer capricious? Does he get bored over the eons and change his mind a lot? If the designer is not capricious, how does one explain mass extinctions?

The ! signifies ideas. While the question was aimed at 'believers' such ideas are not the property of believers alone and whilst it was possibly put out there to stimulate more pointless argument with said 'believers' in an effort to relieve boredom, I don;t see it as bending or stretching the rules that I as a none believer add my ideas to the mix.

'Believers' of course are free to challenge those ideas as they wish.

 

[Langis]

As a storyteller, divine beings using mass extinction makes for high concept drama. Which is great in fiction. In reality-ville, though, not so plausible.

 

[NekoTheCat]

Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

That's a question about the idea of an ID using mass extinction.


Opening Post



The ! signifies ideas. While the question was aimed at 'believers' such ideas are not the property of believers alone and whilst it was possibly put out there to stimulate more pointless argument with said 'believers' in an effort to relieve boredom, I don;t see it as bending or stretching the rules that I as a none believer add my ideas to the mix.

'Believers' of course are free to challenge those ideas as they wish.

I very much think that the OP was proposing this argument more from my type of perspective. Of course, neither of us are really mind readers. Also, I never implied or said anything about whether you should or could have any input on the issue. I simply think that this issue is just as much about the belief in these topics as it is about the logical consistency of them.

 

[aggle-rithm]

When a woman screams out obscenities whilst giving birth, I don't consider those things 'evil'.

Yes, quite rightly. Which is why it is such a shame that she will burn in hell for all eternity.

 

[Navigator]

Yes, quite rightly. Which is why it is such a shame that she will burn in hell for all eternity.

According to some particular belief systems. The thing about that kind of justice is that it is worse than any human atrocities altogether ever committed.

Attach that to a god idea and call that god 'good' and 'just' and it is easy to understand at least the attitudes involved who support such notions.
On the other hand it would seem unjust if those who committed terrible things against others got off scott free.

So the punishment should fit the crime and just accounting for human justice it is obvious that such ideas of god are tainted with dark human interpretation.

 

[Navigator]

I very much think that the OP was proposing this argument more from my type of perspective. Of course, neither of us are really mind readers. Also, I never implied or said anything about whether you should or could have any input on the issue. I simply think that this issue is just as much about the belief in these topics as it is about the logical consistency of them.

Yep.

I avoid threads which are most obviously bait to entice argument with the religious (mainly it seems - with Christians).

I get the impression they are created through ennui.

 

[Navigator]

As a storyteller, divine beings using mass extinction makes for high concept drama. Which is great in fiction. In reality-ville, though, not so plausible.

I don't understand the vile bit.

 

[I Ratant]

It's ville... as in Pleasantville.
Reality is placed in such a community, in that post.

 

[NekoTheCat]

Yep.

I avoid threads which are most obviously bait to entice argument with the religious (mainly it seems - with Christians).

I get the impression they are created through ennui.

All arguments could be said to be intended to "entice" an argument with someone.