How Did Life Come To Be As It Is To-Day

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

But what is simplest in this case?  To run a universe for billions of years, or to set up a universe that happens to look billions of years old at the point which humanity comes to be, but only needs to be running for the thousands of years humanity is around?

The first. The second would mean creating a universe with the appearance of billions of years of age including starlight in mid transit from a distant light source that might actually not be there and fossils buried in tens of feet of rock from animals that never existed. It's like wanting to film the last ten seconds of an explosion by creating the explosion from that point and then filming, rather than running it from the beginning.

Which of course is why filmmakers always use practical effects and never use CGI.  You're making the assumption that there is only one way of doing things or at least it absolutely must be the simplest way to achieve a particular result.  Yet we really have no way of knowing.

[afleitch]

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

But what is simplest in this case?  To run a universe for billions of years, or to set up a universe that happens to look billions of years old at the point which humanity comes to be, but only needs to be running for the thousands of years humanity is around?

The first. The second would mean creating a universe with the appearance of billions of years of age including starlight in mid transit from a distant light source that might actually not be there and fossils buried in tens of feet of rock from animals that never existed. It's like wanting to film the last ten seconds of an explosion by creating the explosion from that point and then filming, rather than running it from the beginning.

Which of course is why filmmakers always use practical effects and never use CGI.  You're making the assumption that there is only one way of doing things or at least it absolutely must be the simplest way to achieve a particular result.  Yet we really have no way of knowing.

Nor can you have any way of knowing whether Christianity or any other 'revealed' faith like those fossils and starlight are nothing but plants by a trickster god However sometimes a duck is just a duck.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However sometimes a duck is just a duck.

That reminds me of an early MAD comic book story (back before it became the magazine we all know and love).  It was a satire of Disney and in it they had a running gag in which people would call out "Donald duck!" to warn him to duck, which he didn't as he thought they were saying "Donald Duck!"  Then in the penultimate instance of the gag, someone called out "Donald Duck!" and he embarrassed himself while diving to the ground when he didn't need to. Then to close off the gag, Donald interrupted a person calling out to him to inquire whether they meant, "Donald Duck!" or "Donald, Duck!"  He was answered that it was the former just before he got walloped.  Donald of course got mad, but was told, that the other person was going to say "Donald Duck, Duck!" before he got interrupted.  Certainly funnier to read in the comic than in this recap, but as I said I was reminded of it because it points out that even when a duck is a duck, it isn't much help unless we know which duck is meant.

But back to the point, I've been making.  Occam's razor is a helpful tool, but it depends upon an agreement as to what is the simplest option in order to be useful.  Mine own beliefs don't depend upon cosmology, so unless it makes some practical difference—which none of these options do in my opinion—I don't see a reason to worry about them much.

[Robert California]

I wasn't there, so I can't really say.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

It seems pretty obvious that the simplest alternative is the one that requires the least amount of deception - that is, the one where reality matches appearance most closely. Or, to put it another way, the one where a duck is just a duck.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It seems pretty obvious that the simplest alternative is the one that requires the least amount of deception - that is, the one where reality matches appearance most closely. Or, to put it another way, the one where a duck is just a duck.

You're making the assumption that if something like YEC were what happened, the purpose would be deception rather than a simplicity of effort that requires creating only the portion of the universe that is of interest, namely that portion in which beings with free will exist.

[bore]

If "God" found it more difficult to create a 13 billion year old universe than a 5 minute old one, he's not God.

[Vern]

I believe what the bible states. God created everything. The details in how and when He did it doesn't matter much to me. It doesn't change my core belief that Jesus died on a cross for the sins of the world and rose three day later and conquer both death and hell so that we can go to Heaven if we simply believe in him and ask him to come into our hearts and be out lord and saviour and forgive us from our sins.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I get the feeling that my views are a lot like Ernest's. There's no refuting the physical evidence of science within the confines of our universe's "rules of physics," but material evidence doesn't necessarily describe the "truth" of all things. In other words, accepted truths that result from physical evidence are important in our everyday lives, but I don't think they can answer the big questions. And even if they could, I don't think it contradicts the existence of god. To humankind, the divine would arguably manifest itself as scientific phenomena.

In fact, I tend to conceptualize God as more of a force than an actual being. Maybe I'm deifying gravity—I don't know. But there are certainly things at play that are far bigger than humans, humanity, or the human mind. I don't think we can even begin to understand them. If those things aren't godlike, I don't know what is.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Incidentally, just to be clear, I voted Option 2 in the poll, but I don't think we have enough information to rule out the other options as impossibilities because of Occam's razor being applied to their cosmologies. (I do rule out YEC because it is tied to a hyperliteral reading of the Hebrew scripture that would have there be a world-wide flood for which we have no physical evidence of.)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It was created by God and then evolved after the Fall.  Simply put, it was designed to evolve.

I believe what the bible states. God created everything. The details in how and when He did it doesn't matter much to me. It doesn't change my core belief that Jesus died on a cross for the sins of the world and rose three day later and conquer both death and hell so that we can go to Heaven if we simply believe in him and ask him to come into our hearts and be out lord and saviour and forgive us from our sins.

My feelings exactly.

[John Dibble]

It was created by God and then evolved after the Fall.  Simply put, it was designed to evolve.

When exactly in the timeline of life did the Fall occur, by your reckoning? The evidence points to living things evolving long before humans entered the fray.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It was created by God and then evolved after the Fall.  Simply put, it was designed to evolve.

When exactly in the timeline of life did the Fall occur, by your reckoning? The evidence points to living things evolving long before humans entered the fray.

Maybe it did, but that's beyond the point.  What matters most to me is my belief that God is real and Jesus Christ is His Son and my Savior.