Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

[Scorpion]

So, do you believe these teachings. If so, what is your evidence?

I spent my youth searching for answers to experiences I was having and the above is a rough outline of my findings. I used to feel something like fire flowing through me, and one day I saw a diagram of the chakras which were the same locations I had felt the fire. I also felt something like cobwebs floating over my skin. After a long search I was told the problem was caused by my etheric body being loose, and I had spiritual healing which eventually corrected it.
I attended spiritualist meetings during the 1970s and I had many messages from the spirit world that were convincing evidence of survival.
I have also had some limited direct psychic experiences that have made it seem probable to me that the spirit world exists.
But in my old age I have my doubts, and I am no longer sure of anything save one. Logic still works even when you are in chaos. Or as Leo Tolstoy put it.
"Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six".

 

[Navigator]

What offer of salvation from the skies? Despite the large body of science-fiction in existence, I'm not aware that anyone expects space exploration to drastically affect our daily lives beyond the ways that it already does (such by means of satellites).

It's not like we think that we're all going to live on an artificial paradise built on Mars or anything.

Maybe it might surprise you to learn that this is on the agenda in relation to Mars?
You could be surprised at how such things do actually affect our daily lives, and not necessarily in ways which are good.
Check this out. {How Wolves Change Rivers} It shows clearly how everything has its reason for being and to forego nature to the point where we simply **** in our own nest and think we will fly away before that **** hits the fan - well that is an unnatural way to think.
Brains firing up those type thoughts are not altogether.

You're forgetting other fields of scientific research, such as biology, chemistry, genetics, agriculture, electronics, ect. All of these things affect and improve the lives of billions of people.

Yes...in our country (NZ) we have a steady increase in dairy farming which has made it something of a problem in relation to swimming in rivers.
Drinking the water is not an option.
We have allowed this to happen how? By wanting cheap goods to impress our kids how much we love them with?
Because if we didn't have shopping, what would we do with our spare time?
Because China breeds so prolifically that they can spare the personal to do the job cheaper but need us to grow their food for them, at the cost of our own environment?



Science, as wonderful as it can be, is behind every move humans have made and when the chasing of the almighty $ is the motivation, corners are cut.
The problem is that there is good science and bad science and we are only told that science is good for us, our species and our species future.
But is that good science?

Even if we scrapped space-exploration, how is this going to make any realistic progress to "healing the planet and making sure it is a viable healthy nurtured thing" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? Please explain how stopping space exploration is going to allow us to make significant progress in achieving this.

One less hole to throw money into. I see though I am speaking with someone who does not even know what "healing the planet and making sure it is a viable healthy nurtured thing" means so we will leave that one to answer itself, whichever way it goes.

If you want to argue for us working to "healing the planet" the first step (after providing a coherent explanation of what this is supposed to mean) is to provide a realistic plan for achieving this, and then convince people that this plan is worthwhile and likely to succeed.

Sure it is.

It's only after you've done this that you can start arguing that we should divert funds from other fields of endeavor in order to be able to implement the plan.

Well then I have no chance if greater minds are already engaged in the status quo of keeping the present systems operating.

Greater minds are so busy...well...being greater.

Trying to convince people to divert funds for the sake of implementing a plan that doesn't yet exist, or because of vague and fuzzy feelings that the money could be better spent elsewhere is rather pointless.

DeJaVu
Well I throw it out there anyway. "Look after your own citizens then help the rest of the world" seems good advise. You want details on how to make this happen?
I am an "ideas man" - I am not a workers of miracles whereby I wave my hand and 'hey presto'.
I have made it clear over the years on this board that this requires exceptional minds, minds which are first able to grasp the actual problems and critically think answers into existence.
*Mostly the minds answering are those focused on the philosophy that there is really not 'problem'. *Things are fine just the way they are thank you.

Besides, it isn't the money that's the main issue here, it's the resources that the money represents. Diverting the money from space exploration isn't going to magically transform rocket scientists into doctors, agricultural engineers and social workers.

Why not? Is the intellect of the rocket scientist only applicable inside the realm of rocket science?
Are they otherwise useless morons without their rockets?
*Not forgetting (for how can we) that the history of rocket science is corrupted with ex Nazi ticket holders.
Such attitude and need to conquer and own resource is not at all easy to filter out of such systems build upon such philosophies.

As such, Russia and America had no choice but to excuse those Nazi scientists because they still had a war going on and such scientists were seen as assets in the fight to win that war. Cold as it was, because the stalemate had already been reached, the fear the citizens had about the enemy was enough to gain support for pouring $ into that rabbit hole.

The land used for space research isn't going to magically start sprouting bountiful crops that teleports itself into the kitchens of the impoverished without needing to solve the seemingly intractable problems of logistics and equitable distribution.

Well there you go. There are some fine minds quite able to be utilized to find ways of making it so.

Doing this will simply put all these people out of work... and many of them (or the people who are unable to find work because one ex-NASA employee or another has taken the jobs they'd have otherwise have gotten) will be the ones needing assistance from the government in order to feed themselves. The money these employees, contractors and associated organizations would have gotten now no longer trickles into the economy through wages into various businesses through spending, and no longer end up back in the government's hands through taxes, so the effective savings are far less than they would seem at first glance.

This doesn't strike me as a particularly effective strategy for improving the world.

That is because you are applying *old world thinking* to new world problems.

You mean the thread about a proposed non-government funded Mars colony that's filled with responses like... ?

Even these should not be allowed to go forward until those non government orgs help fix the world.

There is no reason why a few well funded orgs should deem to own the bulk of the resources and squander those on frivolous adventures all the while on the back of a dying world.

If they seriously want to be remembered, let them make a name for themselves helping to fix the world rather than seriously working in support of projects circumnavigating those real problems as if somehow setting up shop on Mars is the easier task.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why pick on space programs? The US spends more than thirty times more money on defense than it does on space.

If the military didn't think space travel was a nifty way to drop bombs on people, we wouldn't have a space program at all.

 

[Navigator]

Let's focus on this idea, if you wish to discuss it.

What is the spirit using the brain for?

And what can the spirit do, without the brain?

For instance, without the brain (and the other relevant physical apparatus such as the eyes), can the spirit see? If so, then why does physical damage to the retina, optic nerve, or visual cortex make a person blind?

Can a spirit, without the brain, read or understand language? If so, why must an infant learn language? Why aren't we able to understand the languages our spirits were fluent in in previous lifetimes?

Can the spirit, without the brain, remember? If so, why does deterioration of the brain (such as in senile dementia) cause memory loss? Why can't the spirit fill in any missing information that the brain can no longer provide (such as, in extreme cases, the name of a spouse or relative) from its own memory? For that matter, why can't my spirit tell me where I left my car keys, when my brain forgets?

Can a spirit, without the brain, make wise decisions? If so, then why do people whose brains are physically impaired by alcohol, drugs, or illness make poor decisions?

Respectfully,
Myriad

What is the spirit using the brain for?

Consciousness (The Spirit) is using the brain to manipulate the body in order to get the body to build things.

And what can the spirit do, without the brain

In relation to the human body, the spirit can do very little without it.
In relation to the brain, same again.

Intelligence is critical.

In relation to itself as an independent thing, what it can do would depend on its environment.
Also data has it that there are many 'levels' involved in regard to consciousness and these levels are created because of the different abilities of these aspects of consciousness.
The new are meeting the ancient, through a series of levels.

For instance, without the brain (and the other relevant physical apparatus such as the eyes), can the spirit see? If so, then why does physical damage to the retina, optic nerve, or visual cortex make a person blind?

Why do bind people sometimes see?

The experience consciousness has through the human instrument relies on that instrument. The body intelligence sometimes experiences 'what spirit sees' in another type of reality.
Some people write that off as 'illness' - someones brain is not functioning as it 'should'.


Can a spirit, without the brain, read or understand language? If so, why must an infant learn language? Why aren't we able to understand the languages our spirits were fluent in in previous lifetimes?

Part of the process involves as absolute close as possible condition of the position of complete newness.
The data of experience is sent to the main frame (please remember - all is metaphor) for reasons not very apparent but I have seen data which suggests the reason is simply because consciousness [spirit] is learning...and not just within the framework of this physical universe.

'We' are it vessel - however - 'we' are really 'it' using the vessel.

There is also the idea that some can and do reincarnate into bodies which give them access to previous life data streams. They can set themselves up as it were for the next incarnation.
It might not be such a random and brand new thing for some 'spirits' incarnating.

Can the spirit, without the brain, remember? If so, why does deterioration of the brain (such as in senile dementia) cause memory loss? Why can't the spirit fill in any missing information that the brain can no longer provide (such as, in extreme cases, the name of a spouse or relative) from its own memory? For that matter, why can't my spirit tell me where I left my car keys, when my brain forgets?

There may be a point at which self identity has the final say.
If you are identifying as the brain and it malfunctions, then that aspect may be separated from consciousnesses (spirit) due to that self identification.
If you understood your 'self' to actually BE 'spirit' then you might not be so caught in the disease of the brain (such as in senile dementia). Spirit takes it all in its stride... Data data data...

Of course, from the observers perspective, it is unknown just 'where' people go when they are so obviously 'not at home'.

We are just seeing the body do its thing.

Can a spirit, without the brain, make wise decisions? If so, then why do people whose brains are physically impaired by alcohol, drugs, or illness make poor decisions?

That's a bold Q!

Why do some who use drugs make good decisions?

Name me someone not on drugs.

Now where is consciousness while all this bad decision making is going on?

What is a 'good' decision which cannot be made because of drugs?

Consciousness deals more with the data of experience. Drugs are experience which also provides data.

Ultimately, is it good decision to spend your life identifying problems, bringing ideas to the table which may add to the solution?
does it matter to you if I am under the influence of marijuana and/or alcohol sometimes whilst I ponder upon possible solution? Do you allow such to influence your bias in relation to such brain damage? Is the spirit unable to help because of such brain damage?

Are you perhaps pointing a finger at something you see as a problem and if so, since we live in a drug taking world, what is your solution?

Or:

Is it really a great issue which prevents us all from thinking about how to solve problems whilst under the influence, because we are under the influence?

So what are the minds not under the influence doing?

Your car keys are always where you left them, unless they are somewhere someone else left them.
Of course consciousness (you) know where you left them. You brain (not you) just forgot.

 

[Myriad]

Yes! very interesting questions, and of course I do not know the answers to most of it. As far as what we use a brain for, it is the vessel of consciousness when we are incarnate. The occult teaches we have higher bodies that lay dormant during our physical lives. These are connected to the earthly body by what is called the etheric double, and that contains energy centers called chakras. The spirit mind is channeled down through the chakras and into the brain. The brain only remembers what it has learned from birth and has stored in its memory cells. After we die we first inhabit the astral and then the mental body but the seat of consciousness is the soul body. The soul body contains the memory of all past incarnations, but we do not remember these lives until we have reached the end of our cycle of incarnations.
We can see with astral and mental eyes while still incarnate, and we can see into those realms if we develop our psychic powers. But the senses of each body can only see into the corresponding realm, so we cannot see the physical world with astral eyes. So developing astral vision would not make a blind person see this world. It would just make them see into the astral plane.
Memory loss is due to brain deterioration, but when the person dies and goes to the astral or mental realms, they will recover their memories.
I do not know how the spirit mind is stored, because I never heard those details from any spirit guide, but clearly it is not limited by brain cells. In fact it is said the spirit mind is infinitely expandable, and can contain unlimited information. But we cannot normally access the higher levels of consciousness while still incarnate and using a brain. However some people say they can achieve heightened levels of awareness through meditation, and other methods.

Thank you for the detailed response.

To me, this style of occultism comes across as old-school and a bit quaint. Of course, for many, that's the attraction, so whatever works for you. But many of the narratives and imagery of the higher planes were originally inspired by ancient notions of how the material plane works, which we now know were woefully incomplete and full of wrong guesses and fanciful inventions. Since the Enlightenment, we've learned, for example, that it's nerve impulses and protein machinery, not the intervention of spirit, that turns our thoughts of moving our limbs into actual movement of our limbs. We've learned that it's evolution, not a mysterious inclination of matter to strive toward "higher" forms, that gives rise to the structures and functions of living things.

Why should I or anyone expect that people whose understandings of the material plane included earth, air, fire, and water being the four fundamental material elements, and the brain having no known function apart from speculation that it might be a blood filter, would develop an understanding of higher planes that was any more accurate? Everybody could see and interact with the material world and the ancient magi still got most of it wrong; occult knowledge of invisible ineffable things learned from dreams and trances and drugs and rituals could only be even less reliable.

One thing that ancient occultism had going for it, though, was a certain elegance. It explained things that not only had no material explanation, but no way to imagine that they even could have a material explanation. These were not remote abstract things, but everyday phenomena and experiences, like the necessity of breath, the development of a child in the womb, the ability to move volitionally, and the ability to remember.

Memory, to follow up with that example, could only be understood as outright magic; that is, a phenomenon that had to exist entirely on a supposed mental plane or higher. If someone lost memory, even if there was a seeming physical cause like a blow to the head, it had to be an affliction likewise on that higher plane; an evil spirit, perhaps, or a displacement of some part of the spirit to a different plane. (One of the last hold-outs in recent times for the notion of an exclusively mental plane of existence was Freud; his theories insisted on mental causes, e.g. conflicted feelings or painful memories, for all mental problems including those we now know to have physical causes.) There was no notion of memory as a material phenomenon, so no need for the kind of redundancy you've described above, of having a material memory and a duplicate (data backup in the cloud?) spiritual one.

As we've come to understand the mechanisms of the material world better, what once was a single set of entities that bridged the higher planes with the material -- one mind, one sensorium, one consciousness, one body form, one memory -- has now become doubles (or more) of everything. A physical body and an astral one. A physical memory and a soul memory. Physical eyes and astral eyes. Brain consciousness and higher consciousness. It's inelegant. It's, I say redundantly, redundant. At the same time, the amazing capabilities that the material plane has, that we've been discovering, increasingly make those doubles unnecessary for explaining the phenomena we observe and experience.

Given that the existence of invisible intangible higher planes is unfalsifiable, I don't care very much whether any of it is true or not. That's not the point. I just don't find it aesthetically appealing.

I'll make a suggestion for further thought. When you see everything duplicated, maybe there really are two of everything, but maybe instead, there's a mirror. Where do you think such a mirror could exist? And which way might it be facing?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[smartcooky]

If the military didn't think space travel was a nifty way to drop bombs on people, we wouldn't have a space program at all.

Send manned missions to the Moon, and unmanned missions to all the remaining planets, and some of their satellites, and asteroids and comets, and the heliopause, to refine their ability to drop bombs on people.

I see!

ETA: When Robert Goddard first considered his experiments in rocketry in the 1920's, I doubt that "dropping bombs on people" was foremost in his thinking

 

[NekoTheCat]

Sorry that this is so late, I haven't had internet for a while.

2: I would say something else.

But what would that be and what reason do have to think it so?

3: Some say life is cruel. Nature does what nature does. What cruelty are you referring to regarding creatures not all who experience fun and happiness?

Creatures that painfully suffer through their short existence only to end up dying young. Creatures that never truly get the chance to live life. Creatures that end up having much more pain throughout their life than anything that could be considered happiness. You don't have to exactly look very far to find specific examples.

4: The fact of dying propels my interest in such concepts as afterlife and god ideas. No one knows for certain they will not experience a continuation of life (as consciousness) or if so, what that might be. Those things will be known to the individual upon the individuals death, if indeed it turns out to be the case.

I don't see how this at all addressed my point. Still, there are plenty of ideas of which we don't know the truth of. We could for example be continually viewing thing from different bodies, switching from one random person to the next around every five minutes or so. Or we could be inside a matrix style reality where I am the only real person and everyone else is an illusion, and I could be living this life for the experience or fun of it. We could be randomly flipping from one period in time to the next, where one moment I'm 24, the next I'm 53, and then I'm 2 years old, continually switching. Instead of an afterlife, we could simply be born again as someone new, or as the exact same person living the exact same life over and over again.

I could go on for years thinking up ideas that we have no real way to know the truth of. Unless we have some sort of reason to think that there is something like an afterlife, where some deity or group of deities wants or allows people and other beings to suffer for some unknown yet supposedly moral reason, we have no reason to believe it. If we don't have such a reason then as far as any can tell its nothing more than a baseless ad-hoc justification attempting to make the cruelties around us compatible with Western religions. Anyone can come up with ideas ad-hoc to make any random idea compatible with the reality around us, the question is whether there is any evidence to either of them.

 

[TimCallahan]

While I realize that, just because I initiated this thread, I don't have any right to control it, I wonder if we could get back to the question I posed in the OP. One fairly reasonable answer to the question of why an intelligent designer would use mass extinctions is that said designer, while intelligent, is far from perfect. Of course, another is that there is no ID. Does anyone have any other ideas?

 

[Navigator]

ETA: When Robert Goddard first considered his experiments in rocketry in the 1920's, I doubt that "dropping bombs on people" was foremost in his thinking

Sure it can be said that the inventor is not responsible for how the invention is used, although it would be remiss to suggest that he couldn't have figured out what potential such invention could have in relation to the machinery of warfare.
Such deduction does not require the intellect of a rocket scientist to figure out.

 

[Navigator]

But what would that be and what reason do have to think it so?

That I am within an extremely confined space in relation to existence and have no particular way of verifying that some mad invention occurred, and that this must be the case if indeed one is to contemplate ID.
That my own small part in the whole thing isn't without its amazing **** too which I can say "well it is mad but not in a bad way."
That I can ponder upon what might entice some aspect of ID to participate within such a universe and what purpose might be propelling that consciousness.
That I can find answers which don't have to portray some monster mad scientist type god ideas as the only case one can place on the table.

Creatures that painfully suffer through their short existence only to end up dying young. Creatures that never truly get the chance to live life. Creatures that end up having much more pain throughout their life than anything that could be considered happiness. You don't have to exactly look very far to find specific examples.

Well I can understand your concern there. Certainly there is suffering and how can one bear to think some ID created this suffering trap just so there would be suffering?
Otherwise suffering would be all there was and since that is not the case...

I don't like seeing beings suffer. But am I going to turn away when my loved ones depart?
Moreover, if I am that concerned (as you obviously are) would it be right of me to bring children into this world?
How should I feel about those who do bring children into this world?
If I really sincerely think that no intelligent designer would put consciousness into the universe because of the suffering part, then what do I think of those who do use their own abilities to seed and birth human beings into this world which includes suffering?

I don't see how this at all addressed my point. Still, there are plenty of ideas of which we don't know the truth of. We could for example be continually viewing thing from different bodies, switching from one random person to the next around every five minutes or so. Or we could be inside a matrix style reality where I am the only real person and everyone else is an illusion, and I could be living this life for the experience or fun of it. We could be randomly flipping from one period in time to the next, where one moment I'm 24, the next I'm 53, and then I'm 2 years old, continually switching. Instead of an afterlife, we could simply be born again as someone new, or as the exact same person living the exact same life over and over again.

I personally just stick with what is in relation to life as I know it. Sure all that other stuff can be contemplated but is not here nor there in relation to how a life usually runs its course, in its linear fashion.

I could go on for years thinking up ideas that we have no real way to know the truth of. Unless we have some sort of reason to think that there is something like an afterlife, where some deity or group of deities wants or allows people and other beings to suffer for some unknown yet supposedly moral reason, we have no reason to believe it. If we don't have such a reason then as far as any can tell its nothing more than a baseless ad-hoc justification attempting to make the cruelties around us compatible with Western religions. Anyone can come up with ideas ad-hoc to make any random idea compatible with the reality around us, the question is whether there is any evidence to either of them.

If you think there should be evidence of both god and afterlife you need to construct your ideas on those accordingly.

Otherwise evidence remains out of reach, whereas the possibility remains.

 

[Navigator]

While I realize that, just because I initiated this thread, I don't have any right to control it, I wonder if we could get back to the question I posed in the OP. One fairly reasonable answer to the question of why an intelligent designer would use mass extinctions is that said designer, while intelligent, is far from perfect. Of course, another is that there is no ID. Does anyone have any other ideas?

The idea that mass extinctions need not signify 'imperfection' (in the form of malicious disregard of creature suffering) on the part of the ID.
Now extinct species may well have been necessary as a step to experiencing new forms.

It would depend on what the agenda of the ID was in relation to this universe and more specifically - Human Beings it is experiencing through as to what exactly its nature really is.

 

[smartcooky]

While I realize that, just because I initiated this thread, I don't have any right to control it, I wonder if we could get back to the question I posed in the OP. One fairly reasonable answer to the question of why an intelligent designer would use mass extinctions is that said designer, while intelligent, is far from perfect. Of course, another is that there is no ID. Does anyone have any other ideas?

Tim

So the question is "Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?"

Well, I consider this a bit of an oxymoron. A designer who deliberately designs a system so that, several times, it comes within an inch of destruction, instead of just making it properly in the first place, does not tick the "intelligent" or the "competent" box for me.

Of course, if the processes of creation (and I use the term in the scientific sense) and evolution are completely random, then it is as easy to understand how mass extinctions take place as it is to realise that there is no intelligent designer or all-powerful deity.

The observed evidence fits the random chance theory perfectly, without all the attendant additional assumptions required when we postulate the existence of a mythical deity or designer.... Occams' Razor!!

 

[Brian-M]

Maybe it might surprise you to learn that this is on the agenda in relation to Mars?

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. Do you have any examples of people who genuinely believe that we will be able to live in an artificial paradise on Mars in the foreseeable future?

You could be surprised at how such things do actually affect our daily lives, and not necessarily in ways which are good.
Check this out. {How Wolves Change Rivers} It shows clearly how everything has its reason for being and to forego nature to the point where we simply **** in our own nest and think we will fly away before that **** hits the fan - well that is an unnatural way to think.
Brains firing up those type thoughts are not altogether.

What has that to do with what people expect from space travel?

We know that ecosystems have highly complex inter-dependencies. That's not news.

And why would anyone think we could just fly away before the poop hits the fan?

Even if all the ecosystems on earth collapsed totally, even if some kind of unthinkable disaster occurred that left humans as the only multi-cellular species living on the planet... even then earth would still be a far more advantageous place to live than anywhere else in the solar system.

By claiming that people might think they can just fly away, you're saying that you believe that people would prefer to live in environments that are far worse than what would remain on earth even if the worst possible environmental disasters occurred.

That doesn't make any freakin' sense.

Yes...in our country (NZ) we have a steady increase in dairy farming which has made it something of a problem in relation to swimming in rivers.
Drinking the water is not an option.
We have allowed this to happen how? By wanting cheap goods to impress our kids how much we love them with?

By having loose standards for agricultural effects on the local environment and a desire for achieving economic prosperity (and avoiding poverty) by being a successful primary products exporter.

Because if we didn't have shopping, what would we do with our spare time?

Play computer games, watch TV, argue on internet forums, read books, visit nightclubs.

Because China breeds so prolifically that they can spare the personal to do the job cheaper but need us to grow their food for them, at the cost of our own environment?

China has one of the lowest population growth rates in the entire world.

This is largely due to the one-child policy put into place in 1979 that discourages families from having more than one child.

(And I think you meant "personnel", not "personal". Similar words with different meanings.)

Science, as wonderful as it can be, is behind every move humans have made and when the chasing of the almighty $ is the motivation, corners are cut.

That's a big claim. Is science behind the mass production of homeopathic "remedies"? Is science behind the decisions of particular countries to host the Olympic games? Was science behind the Gulf war? Was science behind the decision that Americans would have a man on the moon by the end of the 60s?

I think not.

The problem is that there is good science and bad science and we are only told that science is good for us, our species and our species future.
But is that good science?

Science is a process for gaining knowledge about the universe. Bad science is where this process is performed improperly, thereby introducing the possibility of misleading or incorrect results.

How the knowledge produced by scientific research is implemented is not science.

For example, the manufacture of highly-polluting SUVs is based on the same scientific knowledge used to manufacture more efficient family cars. The existence of these specific vehicles is a result of capitalistic industrialism, not science.

One less hole to throw money into.

I don't see how it helps us if the money just gets thrown into different holes instead, and simply piling it up certainly wouldn't help anyone. I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Well then I have no chance if greater minds are already engaged in the status quo of keeping the present systems operating.

That's a strange attitude you have. It's not worth trying to convince people to divert money into a workable plan that helps anyone, so you're just going to try and convince people to divert people to divert money to an unspecified purpose by denigrating the purpose that it is currently being used for.

Why not? Is the intellect of the rocket scientist only applicable inside the realm of rocket science?
Are they otherwise useless morons without their rockets?

It's because they have a lifetime of training and experience in the industry, but no training and experience in these other fields.

I suppose you could keep paying their existing wages and send them back to college in order to train them in new fields (while paying their tuition as well), but is that actually a realistic proposition?

There is no reason why a few well funded orgs should deem to own the bulk of the resources and squander those on frivolous adventures all the while on the back of a dying world.

Is there any reason why they shouldn't be able to? You could equally argue that production companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars creating a new blockbuster movie should be spending that money on helping the poor instead.

It's a nice sentiment, but completely unrealistic.

And I'm not sure why you seem to think the world is dying.

 

[Brian-M]

While I realize that, just because I initiated this thread, I don't have any right to control it, I wonder if we could get back to the question I posed in the OP. One fairly reasonable answer to the question of why an intelligent designer would use mass extinctions is that said designer, while intelligent, is far from perfect. Of course, another is that there is no ID. Does anyone have any other ideas?

Sorry that I've let Navigator drag me into a major derail.

Maybe the intelligent designer doesn't have direct control over the development over the organisms, and is forced to use crude methods of altering the environment in order to produce the intended result.

 

[Scorpion]

While I realize that, just because I initiated this thread, I don't have any right to control it, I wonder if we could get back to the question I posed in the OP. One fairly reasonable answer to the question of why an intelligent designer would use mass extinctions is that said designer, while intelligent, is far from perfect. Of course, another is that there is no ID. Does anyone have any other ideas?

I have always thought that God started the process of creation as a perfect plan that needed no further intervention. So creation is working itself out according to the underlying divine motive, but without interference. Therefore God does not use mass extinctions, he simply allows the possibility as part of the evolutionary process. We might get made extinct ourselves if we are hit by a giant asteroid, or we may soon be facing great loss of life due to global warming. But it does not matter because we are all divine spirits incarnate in the flesh for a short time for experience sake. If this world is destroyed our spirits will simply move to another planet to continue our cycle of incarnations, and animals do the same.

 

[John Jones]

What is the spirit using the brain for?

Consciousness (The Spirit) is using the brain to manipulate the body in order to get the body to build things.

And what can the spirit do, without the brain

[mercy-snip!]

Stop. Just stop.

 

[John Jones]

[...]


Science, as wonderful as it can be, is behind every move humans have made and when the chasing of the almighty $ is the motivation, corners are cut.
The problem is that there is good science and bad science and we are only told that science is good for us, our species and our species future.
But is that good science?
[...]

Refresh my memory.

What if anything do you know about the discipline of science? Please spare us any more long-winded bloviations.

Just tell us what you know about science, and how you can convince the casual observer that you know what you're talking about.

 

[Scorpion]

On the issue of suffering I would say that it does not mean God is cruel. It means that evolution and growth need powerful incentives to make changes. So the predator and the prey both evolve in their pursuit of one another. We too change through suffering, but not very much when life is easy. We would not develop strength of will and courage if there was nothing to loose.
If God really did throw people into hellfire for eternity, then I would say he was a monster. But to allow suffering as part of a process that forces evolution is tolerable.
If you take the longer view that everything is immortal and divine, and will eventually grow strength out of adversity then suffering and mass extinctions are not so terrible.
Animals do not suffer like we do as they quickly forget danger, and the rabbit that has escaped the fox just goes back to nibbling grass. Animals do not know they are going to die, it just happens. So life is more merciful for animals than for humans.

 

[Brian-M]

Animals do not suffer like we do as they quickly forget danger, and the rabbit that has escaped the fox just goes back to nibbling grass. Animals do not know they are going to die, it just happens. So life is more merciful for animals than for humans.

I'd be careful about making claims like that.

Apparently the study of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in animals, including rabbits, is an actual field of research. For example...

Animal models of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are based on fear conditioning where innocuous cues elicit reactions that originally occur to traumatic events--a core feature of PTSD. Another core feature is hyperarousal--exaggerated reactions to stressful events. One limitation of animal models of PTSD is that group effects do not model the sporadic incidence of PTSD. We developed an animal model of PTSD in which rabbit nictitating membrane responses become exaggerated as a function of classical conditioning to a tone conditioned stimulus (CS) paired with a shock unconditioned stimulus (US). Exaggerated responses to the US are a form of hyperarousal termed conditioning-specific reflex modification (CRM) and occur in the absence of the CS. Inspecting data across several experiments, we determined 25% of our rabbits exhibit strong CRM despite all subjects having high levels of conditioning. To determine how prone rabbits were to CRM (susceptibility) or how resistant (resilience), we examined data from 135 rabbits analyzing for factors during CS-US pairings and during US prescreening that would predict CRM.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23181382

 

[calebprime]

Stop. Just stop.

Seconded.