The article states that the fossil was "an animal", without further explaining what actually constitutes "an animal", or what characteristics made it unique compared to other organisms at the time (or now for that matter). Maybe it's evident to people in the field, to a layman (like me) the term 'animal' is fairly fuzzy.
I went to Wikipedia and found this definition: "With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development".
They mean "an animal" in the cladographic sense as being part of the same evolutionary tree as modern animals, and not e.g. lichens or funguses. Specifically, they seem to have detected cholesterol (or some decay product thereof maybe) in the fossil, which is a lipid that only animals make.
The identity of the ediacaran fauna has long been controversial. They don't "look like" modern animals (all of whom descend from forms that appeared later, in the cambrian explosion), so they're hard to place. This is a big, big result if it holds up.
> Now, by identifying the remains of organic matter on newly discovered Ediacaran fossils as ancient cholesterol, the scientists have been able to confirm Dickinsonia was an animal, which makes it the oldest known animal.
>We applied a new approach (17) to test the lichen, protist, and animal hypotheses by studying biomarkers extracted from organically preserved dickinsoniids. Hydrocarbon biomarkers are the molecular fossils of lipids and other biological compounds. Encased in sedimentary rock, biomarkers may retain information about their biological origins for hundreds of millions of years. For instance, hopanes are the hydrocarbon remains of bacterial hopanepolyols, whereas saturated steranes and aromatic steroids are diagenetic products of eukaryotic sterols. The most common sterols of Eukarya possess a cholesteroid, ergosteroid, or stigmasteroid skeleton with 27, 28, or 29 carbon atoms, respectively. These C27 to C29 sterols, distinguished by the alkylation pattern at position C-24 in the sterol side chain, function as membrane modifiers and are widely distributed across extant Eukarya, but their relative abundances can give clues about the source organisms (24).
It's remarkable how ancient life is in general. Stromatolites have been identified in basically the oldest rocks you can find at ~3.7 Gy and this requires full-fledged bacteria. This implies that the very earliest beginnings of self-organizing and propagating biological systems are much older than that, and somehow evolved on an Earth being regularly struck by Chixculub-sized impactors and much more active volcanism. Either the process of evolving life is easier than it seems, or life on Earth has rolled the hard six an awful lot.
This really makes me wonder why we seem to only have one common ancestor. It's starting to look like life happened really early, which means it's really easy, which means it should have happened more than once.
All existing life use a single fairly sophisticated "platform" of basic biochemistry. DNA is by itself a highly evolved thing. Life from an independent origin would probably use a molecule that had a very similar purpose, but the details would be different.
This is a good question and there's lots of possible answers.
1. Multiple forms of life did arise at about the same time, but in the end there was one.
2. Multiple forms of life did arise and ended up cross breeding or doing lateral gene transfers or any number novel things. We are the sum result of the earliest forms of life, but it's not like we have everything mapped out there.
3. The potential for new life is all around us, but can't compete with existing life that has millions of years head start. Regardless of where you pick a point after life is already established, a million years later, when the dinosaurs went extinct, 1901, the problem is the same. Something else is already there has been evolving for ages.
4. New life does periodically arise but it's a drop in the ocean and finding that particular drop isn't easy. Assuming it even survives at all for any length of time.
5. We've already seen independent life, but just haven't recognized it as such.
The answer I heard (and believe) is that new quasi-life would get eaten immediately by some of the far more vigorous and robust life-forms that have already evolved.
It’s crazy how life just kept building and building on itself. I feel like there were so many opportunities for life to hit a ceiling and never evolve past X stage but yet somehow we broke out.
I've heard this said many times and believed it, but read to day that the leap from single-cell to multi-cellular organisms happened a dozen or so times independent of each other. That makes it an order of magnitude less improbable, if true.
> [...] However, complex multicellular organisms evolved only in six eukaryotic groups: animals, fungi, brown algae, red algae, green algae, and land plants. It evolved repeatedly for Chloroplastida (green algae and land plants), once or twice for animals, once for brown algae, three times in the fungi (chytrids, ascomycetes and basidiomycetes) and perhaps several times for slime molds and red algae.
Lots of things evolved multiple times independently. And while we make a big deal about multi-cellular life, there's still nothing so special about it that that is the one thing that could only have happened once...
The environment kept changing too. Even if an organism evolved to a local maxima where it was the master of it's domain, the climate or geography could change. Or a giant meteor could fall on it's head. At that point, the maximas change.
I've always been a bit disappointed that evolution basically fixed all today's high level body plans about 500 million years ago. Lots of evolution since then has involved turning the crank on incremental and higher-level improvements (most famously, intelligence), but I don't see a lot of innovation in basic biomechanics.
It reminds me of how everyone is willing to experiment with new neural network training algorithms in the software world, but you need tremendous resistance trying to change parts of POSIX to suck less. It's as if in both nature and computing, there's some conservation in the amount of experimentation we're willing to tolerate.
When I read such news, I wonder how people reconcile such discoveries backed by scientific validation, with religious texts that provide other timelines and explanations.
Not sure about other belief systems, but most scientists who are Christian at least would consider your question to be a ‘category error’. Science is generally limited to explaining questions of ‘how’ things happen, while the belief in a creating/sustaining God is believed to be explaining questions of ‘why’.
Professor of Mathematics and Christian John Lennox had a fairly good quote saying that he doesn’t believe as a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing”, in that a Christian doesn’t believe that science being able to explain mechanisms diminishes God in any way, because if a God is in control/sustaining the universe then pretty much everything that science explains can be simultaneously brought about by God.
The whole young earth thing is strangely popular in America but not really strongly held in general mainstream Christianity or (I believe) in mainstream Judaism. There is plenty of scholarship going back thousands of years (back to Augustine circa 4th century AD, or even Phillo of Alexandria in 1st C) who believed that the author of Genesis didn’t intend the first few chapters to be read as attesting literal time periods or mechanisms but convey theological truths about God and humanity.
So while fundie YEC people would probably have a problem with this finding, generally mainstream believers and Christian scientists have no problem with this as just being a step in a process that God causes to occur to intentionally bring about life including humans.
>The whole young earth thing is strangely popular in America but not really strongly held in general mainstream Christianity or (I believe) in mainstream Judaism.
I’m not American, so it has always been weird to me how the early earth thing is widely associated with Christianity, I mean, I have no doubt there must be people really believing on it. But from a non American and non Protestant Christian point of view it is just weird. But my guess is that it must be associated with “Sola Scriptura” and the free and individual interpretation of the Bible some Protestants believe in.
I don't understand why it is weird to believe in a young Earth, but it is not weird to believe that a god literally became a blood sacrifice to himself in order to save us from his wrath or any of the other stories from the Bible that modern theologians still consider literal, undeniable truth.
I guess I was not clear in my point. It's weird to me that the young Earth is widely associated with Christianity, not that some believe is weird or not by itself.
Also I never said Christianity is not weird, at least not from a non mystical point of view.
Chesterton mentions it:
"Now the first thing to note is that if we take it merely as a human story, it is in some ways a very strange story...
...Relatively speaking, it is the Gospel that has the mysticism and the Church that has the rationalism. As I should put it, of course, it is the Gospel that is the riddle and the Church that is the answer. But whatever be the answer, the Gospel as it stands is almost a book of riddles..."
I really recommend reading The Everlasting Man from Chesterton, if you are interested on understanding (not trying to change your beliefs or anything, you can read it just to get a better understanding of Christians beliefs).
I can give one example explanation. My Father is an evangelical Christian (FYI, I am not, I am an atheist and a science enthusiast). I have asked him this exact same question out of curiosity. Here is the answer he gave (albeit just one perspective). He said "God is so powerful that he can do anything including placing all that evidence there to test our faith". That shuts down any reason to continue a conversation (needless to say this is a topic we generally avoid).
Someone once said (not sure the attribution) "never try to reason with someone who has irrational beliefs".
Bertrand Russell: "But if once such possibilities are admitted, there is no reason to place the creation of the world at one point rather than another. We may have all come into existence five minutes ago, provided with ready-made memories, with holes in our socks and hair that needed cutting. But although this is a logical possibility, nobody can believe it."
The really neat bit is that the concept of Last Thursdayism itself, along with Bertrand Russell, was also one of those things created entirely last Thursday.
Which, of course, leads to an even better double-bind, in that it creates a situation of functional equivalence, because, if God makes the universe look and operate as if it is X billion years old, all inquiry and prediction based upon evidence of that conclusion will, by definition, be accurate. So it may not be the "truth", but from the perspective of living in it, that doesn't matter in the least.
And if it only comes up as a matter in the afterlife, (that is, heaven doesn't like the given individual for acting upon the lie) there's another twist in the bind presented: that is God wants the given individual to live, but to do so requires interfacing with the rules of physical reality, which means accepting the predictive power of the "lie".
Taking the response in good faith I would assume that it's just showing the way the debate could go. It's rather constructive, whereas asking why repeatedly, seeking to arrive at a contradiction, is a fool's errand that may work both ways. Proof by contradiction is an important tactic to weed out misconceptions, but the strategy for communication
is to find common agreement. Faith is a loaded term, so in effect the response opens up the meta level to your believes about faith. Indeed, I wouldn't go there out on a limb, either, if I don't have anything to add.
>He said "God is so powerful that he can do anything including placing all that evidence there to test our faith".
So his God is a deceiver. It's impossible to know the truth about anything in that universe. Because you don't know, can't know, when God is putting a finger on the scale.
Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?
Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.
Your father's beliefs are not necessarily irrational, they are just based on different assumptions. Your assumption is that the order in the universe arises from causality and physical law. His assumption is that the order in the universe arises from purpose, i.e. he believes in teleology. That is not in and of itself irrational.
On the contrary, there are no additional assumptions that need to be made in order to reject the idea that the universe was created by a being. Physical laws are not assumed to be an authority that dictates how the universe works. They are just descriptions and models based on what we've observed so far, which means they can be updated based on further observations. In other words, if we were to observe evidence of a powerful being, then our descriptions and models would then need to take that into account. Until then, there is no justification for making that assumption.
First of all, your introduction of "a being" is a straw man. I never said anything about a "being". All I said was that teleology, i.e. the assumption that existence has purpose, is not irrational.
Second, physical laws are not "just" descriptions and models based on observation. Any finite data set is consistent with an infinite number of theories. To whittle down that infinite set you need additional assumptions. Some people choose teleology, some don't. But there's no rational argument one way or the other.
Your comment was in defense of the rationality of believing that a god, specifically the Christian god, planted fossil evidence in order to test our ability to discount it entirely. Now you're saying that this God character doesn't follow from this "purpose" and that invoking that idea is suddenly a straw man outside of this discussion?
Purpose is not something that exists outside of the minds of creatures that can harbor intent. It is inherently subjective, and is often intersubjective. We generally agree on the purpose of the specialized tools we create, but not because the purpose is an inherent property of the tool. Even if the universe was created by a race of gods or pixies or what have you, the purpose they had for it would not necessarily be shared by us.
Actually physical laws are just descriptions and models. To whittle them down you must remove additional assumptions, not add. The fewer assumptions needed to explain the evidence, the better the model. There may be additional data out there that ends up poking holes in our models, in which case we respond by revising the model. Some of the better models we've come up with have actually made surprisingly accurate predictions.
It is rational to base your beliefs on consistent and verified observations, rather than our fanciful imagination.
> Your comment was in defense of the rationality of believing that a god, specifically the Christian god, planted fossil evidence in order to test our ability to discount it entirely.
That's right.
> Now you're saying that this God character doesn't follow from this "purpose" and that invoking that idea is suddenly a straw man outside of this discussion?
Yes, but you left out a very important caveat: I would restate this and add one word:
"... this God character doesn't necessarily follow from this "purpose" ..."
I'm not taking a position on whether or not God does follow from teleology, only that he might. Sorting out whether he does or not is a very thorny problem which is ridiculously beyond the scope of an HN comment.
All I'm saying is that, because God might follow from teleology, you cannot (rationally) dismiss out of hand someone who believes in God as being irrational no matter how irrational their conclusions may seem to you at first glance. Quantum mechanics is pretty frickin' bizarre too. It is possible that they have come to their beliefs in a perfectly rational manner, but starting from an assumption (like teleology) that you simply do not accept despite the fact that you can't actually prove that it is false, at least not rationally :-)
I’m saying that teleology without a mind(s) to hold the purpose is not a coherent concept because purpose is not an intrinsic property of objects. Even if it was a coherent concept, you seem to have decided that it is unfalsifiable, and for some reason you think that makes it rational to believe in. Do you think that all unfalsifiable ideas are perfectly rational to believe in merely because by definition they can’t be proven wrong?
This is a little confused. A theist could easily say that the 'universe arises from causality and physical law', but that God set in motion those laws (deism). A popular form of proto-biology in the early nineteenth century, 'natural theology', committed itself to studying the natural world because it believed that God's divine genius was manifest in its splendour, intricacy, and so on. Also, one could say that the 'universe arises from casuality and physical law', and observes a teleological direction. Most Enlightenment philosophers in the eighteenth century believed that both were true.
Well it is. Your implied opposition was that theology is based upon teleology; atheism upon a belief in physical laws. But a atheist could believe the former, and a theologian the latter. So it hardly works.
Not to be pedantic, but you say 'is' in both relevant clauses:
'Your assumption is that the order in the universe arises from causality and physical law. His assumption is that the order in the universe arises from purpose, i.e. he believes in teleology'
That's right. The OP's father assumes [1] teleology and reasons from there to theology. But I'm not saying that if you start with teleology you necessarily end up with theology, only that you can en up there without being irrational.
By way of contrast, it is much harder to rationally get to theology without starting with teleology (though not impossible). So most atheists simply reject teleology out of hand, and then go on to conclude that theism must be irrational. It's not.
---
[1] Of course I have no idea whether or not this is actually true. I'm just presuming. But it's a plausible presumption that is true of many religious people even if it happens not to be true in this particular case.
If this is rational, it's based on a useless logic: a logic that allows arbitrarily introducing new facts and rules. e:True for arbitrary e. This is why arguing with christians is mostly a fools errand.
Only if teleology is false, which you cannot prove rationally. If teleology is in fact true, then assuming it is true can be very useful for figuring out what is true.
Being rational is not about proving every fanciful idea false. It's about not believing in things without rational justification. You can't simply propose an unfalsifiable idea and declare that the fact that the idea is unfalsifiable means it is rational to believe in it. I could believe that the universe actually runs on invisible, undetectable fart gas left over from a dead race of cosmic faeries, and just as easily can declare, "If my fart gas theory is true, then assuming it is true is useful."
Generalized: "If my wild idea about X is true, then assuming it is true is useful for figuring out what is true."
This is the definition of irrationality. If you want to be rational, you don't start with your conclusion and work backwards from there.
> You can't simply propose an unfalsifiable idea and declare that the fact that the idea is unfalsifiable means it is rational to believe in it.
The fact that teleology is unfalsifiable is not the reason it is (potentially) rational to believe it. Russell's teapot is unfalsifiable, but it is not rational to believe in it. However, consciousness (for example) is also unfalsifiable. A conscious being cannot be experimentally distinguished from a philosophical zombie. It is nonetheless not irrational to believe in consciousness.
Consciousness is only unfalsifiable if you define in such a way that there is an undetectable and magical component to it, which is an unjustified and unfalsifiable assumption. Otherwise the most you could say is that it can sometimes be hard to detect, and that our understanding of how it works is very limited. We know it can be altered by physical changes in the brain. Hard solipsism aside (you're not really going to go there, are you?), we have plenty of evidence that consciousness exists.
So since we agree that the unfalsifiability of an idea does not make it rational to believe in it, then it should also be clear that the statement "you can't prove it is false" is not an argument in favor of your idea.
(merging threads on your request)
Can you prove that? Can you falsify it?
I made an argument for it. I used the example of tools that we make for specific purposes. Do you not agree that those purposes are not an intrinsic property of the tools? If you don't agree with that, I'm interested in knowing where you believe the example fails.
Well, I can tell you that I have subjective experiences. I can't prove that to you. You can call it undetectable and magical, but it's very real to me. It is also unfalsifiable, at least to me. There is no conceivable evidence you could present to me that would convince me that I don't have these experiences.
We could settle on a logic that includes some of these unfalsifiable aspects as axioms or rules. A useful logic doesn't necessarily imply unfalsifiability in the sense of physical experiment. It could very well contain axioms we all reasonably agree on, like "I exist." The problem with Christianity is not that it makes unfalsifiability claims, it's that it includes all-encompassing statements like "god is everything", "god does everything". How does this tree grow? God grows the tree. How is it that I age? God ages me. How come it appears the tree grows according to laws? God made the laws--or more perversely--god made me think there are laws. This perspective is useless for fuethering knowledge. In fact it attacks knowledge by trivializing it. It unversally wraps every possible statement in "god". My stance toward christians is they may as well keep all the god stuff to themselves because it adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
I totally agree that adopting Christianity as an axiom makes no sense. However, "existence has some greater purpose or meaning" is a not-entirely-unreasonable axiom for someone to adopt, and I think someone could get from there to Christianity as a conclusion.
I disagree, the belief system as described is strictly irrational, in the sense that its fundamental assumptions contain a inconsistency that then permits one to prove anything. (I.e. A = not A therefore anything.)
It's a case of a mind trained into a kind of cul-de-sac with no way out. For some people this keeps them on the straight and narrow, for others it runs them smack into a wall. But it is certainly irrational to believe in a Divine Omnipotent Creator who plays crude tricks on you.
Well, rumcajz points out Bertrand Russell's objection, and apocalypstyx presents a fascinating aspect of the matter too, but the problem I'm talking about is the nature of implication/causation itself.
Rationality rests on implication.[1] The system we're talking about literally has "GOD -> anything" as an axiom, so it's useless for reasoning. If GOD -> (A -> B) for all A, B, and "->" then you can literally "prove" that anything implies anything else, or that everything implies God, but you can't disprove anything at all. Saying that there's a part of the system that can change anything about the system is essentially saying that there's no system at all. "Black is white and you get run over at the next zebra crossing."
If you believe that God will play tricks on you then you have nothing external to rely on. Again, this can be good or bad for a given person depending on their context. It's useless for reasoning, but you don't actually have to e.g. believe in Dinosaurs to reach God, so in that sense having no ability to rationalize can be a benefit if it prevents spiritual doubts. But many people instead are simply trapped in impoverished world-models. To wit: the Universe as revealed by scientific investigation redounds to the Glory of God far more than, say, the concepts of "young-earthers", or people who believe God a trickster.
[1] This is actually the one article of faith at the foundation of reason and rationality: that the Universe is comprehensible in terms of causation. The OP's father's god-image is jealous of even this wane and paltry rival.
> the system we're talking about has purpose as an axiom and God as a (perfectly rational) conclusion.
I'm sorry, but I don't see that.
The quote was:
> "God is so powerful that he can do anything including placing all that evidence there to test our faith"
To me, that reads as "God, therefore anything". Specifically all evidence of X is evidence of God, even (and especially) if X contradicts God.
I don't see that it says, "Purpose, therefore God."
For what it's worth, responding to a sidereal comment of yours, I agree with you that "teleology, i.e. the assumption that existence has purpose, is not irrational".
> I don't see that it says, "Purpose, therefore God."
It doesn't. I'm extrapolating. I'm saying that it is possible that such a conclusion can be arrived at rationally, for example, but starting from teleology as an assumption. Because this is possible, you cannot rationally conclude that a person is irrational just because they believe in God. They might be irrational, but they might not. To settle the question you'd need additional data.
> it is possible that such a conclusion [God exists] can be arrived at rationally ... starting from teleology [purposeful Universe] as an assumption.
I agree and indeed I did something like that: I built a model of God based on the assumptions that feedback exists and time is eventually transcended by humans or other sentients through technology or other means. I eventually discarded that model, but it was arrived at rationally.
> Because this is possible, you cannot rationally conclude that a person is irrational just because they believe in God.
I agree[1], however, I didn't do that. OP's father isn't irrational because he believes in God, he is irrational because he thinks God makes fake fossils. It's a concept of God so foolish as to disprove itself. If it were possible to mock God this would surely be the way to do it. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has more dignity.
[1] I am rational and I believe in God, so it would be hypocritical of me to claim that a person is irrational just because they believe in God.
> he is irrational because he thinks God makes fake fossils
You can't know that without knowing how he arrived at that conclusion. You cannot judge the rationality or irrationality of conclusion simply by looking at the conclusion. When you do so, you are making the exact same mistake that atheists make when they look at you and decide that you must be irrational simply because you believe in Satya Sai Baba.
Sorry, I was using that as a kind of short-hand and obscured my meaning. That particular belief is a symptom of the underlying irrationality of his belief-structure but not in itself necessarily arrived at irrationally in the general case, eh?
> You can't know that without knowing how he arrived at that conclusion.
In this case we do know how he arrived at that conclusion and we know that it was due to a form of reasoning that obviates itself, that his reasoning is irrational, that he is, in fact, not reasoning by his own admission.
I can't say whether or not this religion is working for OP's father, but I can (and do) say that it is irrational, because it is irrational in its structure. Anyway, he doesn't have to reason correctly because (his) God(-image) does not require it, He is content with irrational faith.
Numbers are irrational. We can simply write 2+2 = 1 if we assume 1 is called 2. So how can you make religion irrational? Just because the story telling is bizzares and perhaps even unproven, doesn't mean the stories are irrational. We have science theories which cannot be proven and yet continue to be listed in the literature and called science. Let's respect religion. People have their preference and it is irrational and condensing to say we hold irrational beliefs. That's very insulting. I ask for apology here.
I began my conscious adulthood agnostic and irreligious. I sincerely and persistently pursued truth throughout my life, and eventually I found God. Sai Baba. I actually literally believe that Satya Sai Baba was/is/will-be an Avatar: God in Human form.
One of the many aspects of Baba's instruction is that one who loves God should rejoice when passing by any house of worship, be it a Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, or an altar of unhewn stone. God is One.
Please do not think that I disrespect religion, and I apologize for giving that impression.
Anything that helps one cross the ocean of illusion and reach the safe shore of Eternity is good.
If a belief system helps you reach God then it is good even if it's irrational.
I am not sure it is ok to reply to yourself, but I was not sure where to put this. First, I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and would not down vote any of them.
Just to level set, when I say that I think my Fathers beliefs are irrational, I don't mean that in a derisive way, I simply mean they are not fact based or not based on logical reasoning. That is sort of the basis for faith I think. But I am not being disrespectful, I simply choose a different path that is science based.
I agree with you, but I would also want to clarify that there is an important difference between being respectful to people and being respectful to strongly held beliefs. The former is important for a peaceful society, and the latter gives undue protection to ideas that may not merit it. The two are often conflated because many people are trained to identify very strongly with what they've been taught, and to feel personally insulted and attacked when their beliefs are called into question.
The Bible repeatedly states that God cannot lie. Your father is making God out to be a liar. If it comes up again, if you want to start a fight, that's a direction you could go.
I downvoted you because people who have religious faith are not always irrational people. This is a cruel way to judge those who believe in higher beings. Watch your words, seriously.
My response is simply that we concept of time in religious text is not what we think it is. I think science exists and God also exists. Plenty of scientisits believe in God and science at the same time. Are you going to quote and say they are also irrational? Sigh. I may be an angry engineer but I don’t think you should imply all of us as irrational. Don’t do that. You are insulting everyone who believe in a religion for having belief in “irrational beliefs”.
You think it is rational to feel insulted when you are told you are being irrational? What goal are you optimizing for, and how do your actions facilitate the fastest means to converge on it?
Why is it not rational to feel insulted in the first place? Do I need permission and science to feel insulted? Is psychology irrational, then
Definition of irrationality:
> the quality of being illogical or unreasonable.
What part of what I said is irrational? Calling people having faith in religion is holding irrational belief? Irrational is a negative word, not a positive word unless you think we are talking about mathematics.
It is dangerous when your set of beliefs are held as above reproach such that any criticism of them is considered insulting. These are defense mechanisms that act to insulate ideas from scrutiny, and they're used to keep people indoctrinated into whatever their group's ideology happens to be.
If you can't handle your beliefs being questioned or called out as irrational without resorting to feeling personally attacked and calling for apologies, then you're not yet prepared to have an honest conversation about whether you're justified in having those beliefs.
I gave you the meaning of irrational that I'm using. You can cite any definition you want and demand I explain how what I said fits in the framework of definitions I never used, but that definitely doesn't seem like a reasonable or logical request. So maybe start with that?
If I'm god, and I'm creating a planet for humans, and I made humans the curious beings that they are, would I:
a) Create an earth that is boring with no history to dig into and explore
b) Create a rich and storied history with things for them to wonder at
Now, I mean, if I was god I would chose option b. Even in the alternate reality where I would personally chose option a I don't see any reason to think that the actual god couldn't have chosen option b.
I'm not religious or well versed in Christianity, but I'm not aware of any reason why option b is inconsistent with the bible (the one possible exception is the flood story, but that is easily explained away by god fixing the earth afterwards).
I have a similar argument / belief. Simply put, if God was able to create "the heaven and the earth" - an effort that is well beyond our (limited) imaginations - then adding in some doodads (e.g., fossils) and whatnots (e.g., what appears to be geographic history) is a relative piece of cake. I believe to think otherwise is naive and lacks imagination.
I mentioned this possibility to an atheist friend of mine and it stopped him in his tracks.
Note: I'm also not heavily religiou by any means. But the odds of there being things beyond our imagination and beyond our knowledge are extremely possible.
As a side note, I find it kinda funny that Elon Musk can says (paraphrasing) "we live in a world created by someone / something we cannot see and we ultimately cannot understand" and no one gets upset. But isn't that presumption the basis of most theoism-based religions? No offense, but Some Musk states the obvious and that suddenly profound. Maybe I'm missing something?
Your argument is a plausible retcon of the bible, but the "God made it that way" mechanism is essentially infinitely flexible and unfalsifiable. The problem with that is for many people, falsifiability is an important aspect of evidence-based belief (judged by predictive or explanatory value).
Even if your explanation for why there are fossils etc. sounds sort of reasonable, if you grant this reinterpretation of the Christian creation myth, you've established that the goalposts can be moved, and from there you can find a way to move them for just about anything. Imagine we uncover a convincing, contemporaneous writing of Jesus' proclamation that he is merely a human. You could say, "Well God put that writing there to test our faith."
I think the issue is how one is valued over the other. Science's "proof" is based on an assumption(s), and then faith is put into those. To say to someone of religious faith "you can't bbe right because we have proof" completely overlooks science's base assumption, and dismiss the possibilty that said assumption(s) might be off target.
Yes. It's a fine line. None the less faith is faith regardless of how well you rationalize it.
Science's "assumption" is that you can understand the world through repeated and verifiable observation. Faith, on the other hand, is the excuse people give for believing in something when they don't have a good reason.
They give their children story books with pictures of a tyrannosaur trying to dog-paddle with its pathetic little forearms, while the ark sails away in the distance (because that's why they don't exist no more).
One day I wondered where dinosaurs fit into christianity. I know next to nothing about christianity but I think it includes the belief that humans were on Earth pretty soon after Earth's creation, which meant either christianity rejected the dinosaur's existence or they lived alongside humans, which would be a pretty neat scenario to imagine.
If I recall correctly the common explanations I found were that humans did in fact live alongside dinosaurs, and that dinosaurs lived and died within the first few days of their creation for whatever reason.
One article I read on a christian website also said that the dating of dinosaur fossils by scientists was incorrect because bones don't have timestamp labels on them so there's no way one could know.
In regards to "I wonder how people reconcile such discoveries backed by scientific validation" I think it's quite often simply unsubstantiated rejection.
Many mainline Christians treat most of the Old Testament, especially scientifically implausible parts like Genesis, as tradition, and not literal fact. These are things that are perhaps taught in Sunday school to children, but not treated very seriously from a historical or scientific perspective.
This very morning in my church discussion group, we each had a list of questions to discuss our perspective on. This particular gal had the question, "What's your favorite traditional Christian symbol?" Her answer was "the Jesus fish, and the evolved Jesus fish with legs". They are not incompatible given how our denomination tries to understand God.
I went to Wikipedia and found this definition: "With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development".
So these 'Ediacarans' fall into this category?