Creationists: How exactly did the fall of man change biological organisms?

[Job 33:6]

But you guys constantly make knowledge claims about God and his interactions with this world. You're doing it in this thread. How do you know anything about what God does or doesn't do if you can't tell the difference? Is that why you just attribute everything to God and call it a day? It's easier.



That's about the best explanation of how God actually seems to operate I've ever heard.

I was thinking more on your first question as well. Aside from just being entertaining to think about, I believe that there is reason and purpose for us, beyond us existing, seemingly at random without any real clear reason why.

I think that for this reason I am more inclined to entertain ideas of how we might be driven toward understanding our greater purpose.

But why would God intervene if everything is working according to its plan? Is God not omniscient? Would it not know in advance how the plan would pan out? Could it not make a plan that didn't require interference?

I'm curious to know what capabilities you ascribe to your God.

I suppose God could be a sit it and forget it kind of God. Though maybe there are reasons for interjecting.

If Jesus were a figure who interjected, Jesus' purpose would have been to basically justify humanity or to get people to essentially become morally good, and to believe in God, for eternal salvation.

I think this ties back to my other thoughts that, creation being separated from God, and naturally being a place of suffering, and creation being anything but God, needing to be less than God and thus in some fashion is imperfect--

This idea of a broken creation makes way for God to resolve the struggles of suffering and sin through divine intervention.

Maybe intervention was intended from the start.

 

[Phred]

And why would God's intervention have to be undetectable? if God intervened in an obvious way there would be no atheists or agnostics. And why, if God intervenes, does it not intervene to minimise suffering - if only from natural disasters, diseases, etc.?

IOW, why if God intervenes, does the world behave just as we would expect from a world where it doesn't intervene?

The old, "God is outside of this universe" claptrap only works on people who choose not to think about it. Because the instant God interacts with this universe God becomes detectable. If God moves something then God is detectable. If God causes that lightning bolt to strike then God is detectable. Anything. So the only way God is "outside this universe" is for God to stay outside this universe and then the question of whether God exists or not doesn't matter.

As of right now we observe our universe very carefully. And what we observe is a universe that does not have unexplained things taking place in it. As you said, exactly as if there was no God. So I choose to go about my life as if there was no god. Why would there be? Because a bunch of sweaty desert nomads didn't understand the world? Imagine that. They left us a bunch of scrolls that told us what their idea of the world was. I do not accept that this was "inspired by God."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was thinking more on your first question as well. Aside from just being entertaining to think about, I believe that there is reason and purpose for us, beyond us existing, seemingly at random without any real clear reason why.

I think that for this reason I am more inclined to entertain ideas of how we might be driven toward understanding our greater purpose.

Well, I guess that's what comes of having a belief for no reason...

If Jesus were a figure who interjected, Jesus' purpose would have been to basically justify humanity or to get people to essentially become morally good, and to believe in God, for eternal salvation.

Justify humanity? what does that mean? Why would part of God need to justify part of God's creation to another part of God?

An omnipotent God sent a single individual to a single location in ancient times to get all humanity to be good and believe in God...? Does that really sound sensible to you?

If getting humanity to be good and believe in God was the objective, why not appear to everyone, introduce himself and explain what he'd like people to do, no pressure?

I think this ties back to my other thoughts that, creation being separated from God, and naturally being a place of suffering, and creation being anything but God, needing to be less than God and thus in some fashion is imperfect--

This idea of a broken creation makes way for God to resolve the struggles of suffering and sin through divine intervention.

So, God deliberately makes a 'broken' imperfect creation so that he can come to the rescue and help fix the suffering it causes - but then decides not to fix it? Because I don't see any sign of God intervening to resolve the struggles of suffering and sin...

It makes him sound like an arsonist who sets fire to a building so he can come heroically to the rescue of the occupants only to get cold feet when it goes up in flames.

Maybe intervention was intended from the start.

God just likes tinkering, huh?

 

[pitabread]

The most likely scenario in my opinion, is that it started the process of a gradual downward spiral in what was originally perfect DNA, so that disease and mutations begin to happen more frequently as time went by.

From a biological perspective, how would that work? Prior to the Fall, was DNA replication perfect?

 

[renniks]

From a biological perspective, how would that work? Prior to the Fall, was DNA replication perfect?

Well of course we don't know everything.
I would say that we devolved, along with all of creation .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well of course we don't know everything.
I would say that we devolved, along with all of creation .

Then why can't creationists seem to find any scientific evidence for their beliefs? Surely they could form a simple testable hypothesis that explains life as we see it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, I guess that's what comes of having a belief for no reason...

This isn't much of a response. I believe because the moral teachings and ideas of the new testament seem reasonable.

Justify humanity? what does that mean? Why would part of God need to justify part of God's creation to another part of God?

It's making whole what was incomplete. Mankind struggles with sin. Lust, murder, rage, theft, a dultery, deceit, sexual perversions (everyone's favorite) etc.

And God is telling mankind that if you believe in me and follow my law against these crimes against humanity, you will be set free. And those who live in them, will be destroyed.

That's pretty much how that goes.

To be continued

 

[renniks]

Then why can't creationists seem to find any scientific evidence for their beliefs?

We do. In the world as we know everything decays, rusts, or wears out.
It's an endless cycle of death and life, with death bringing life to soil and a seed dying to sprout.
This fits the biblical narrative of a world under the curse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We do. In the world as we know everything decays, rusts, or wears out.
It's an endless cycle of death and life, with death bringing life to soil and a seed dying to sprout.
This fits the biblical narrative of a world under the curse.

Sorry, that is not scientific evidence that supports your belief. You are merely using an ad hoc explanation. To even have scientific evidence you first need a testable hypothesis. Tell us the testable hypothesis, what reasonable test could possibly refute it and then you may be able to claim that you have scientific evidence. Until you do that by definition you do not have any.

 

[renniks]

Lol, that's why science is so limited and ultimately doesn't explain reality very well. It puts human reasoning in a little box. No one can be satisfied with only science. We are also spiritual beings.

 

[Phred]

Lol, that's why science is so limited and ultimately doesn't explain reality very well. It puts human reasoning in a little box. No one can be satisfied with only science. We are also spiritual beings.

Science observes what is. I can't help it that what is doesn't conform to what you want to believe.

 

[Job 33:6]

An omnipotent God sent a single individual to a single location in ancient times to get all humanity to be good and believe in God...? Does that really sound sensible to you?

Jesus didn't just die and tell his followers to just go on about everyday life. Jesus built a church. Meaning that his teachings aren't spread by just himself and only at one time, but for all time, even here in this forum right now (hence why Christian forums exists).

For there to be over a billion Christians today, given that the faith originated thousands of years ago, I'd say is a better job than I could do.

If getting humanity to be good and believe in God was the objective, why not appear to everyone, introduce himself and explain what he'd like people to do, no pressure?

For those outside of the law, they are judged outside of the law, as per Romans. You don't have to pick God. You don't have to believe. It's an option that God allows for us, but he isn't going to break people's arms into submission (though some sects believe in fire and brimstone, I'm more of a grace to great lengths kind of guy).

So, God deliberately makes a 'broken' imperfect creation so that he can come to the rescue and help fix the suffering it causes - but then decides not to fix it? Because I don't see any sign of God intervening to resolve the struggles of suffering and sin...

I'd rather experience life in a world in which there is suffering than not experience life at all. Especially where there is a gift of salvation at the finish line.

According to scripture the resolution is met in the afterlife of course. At least with respect to physical aspects.

It makes him sound like an arsonist who sets fire to a building so he can come heroically to the rescue of the occupants only to get cold feet when it goes up in flames.

Is a parent immoral for giving birth to a child knowing the child will one day suffer in life? I don't think so. And if the parent does still come to help the child in the end, seems ideal to me.

 

[coffee4u]

From a biological perspective, how would that work? Prior to the Fall, was DNA replication perfect?

Yes. The fall corrupted the world and everything on it.

 

[coffee4u]

Then why can't creationists seem to find any scientific evidence for their beliefs? Surely they could form a simple testable hypothesis that explains life as we see it.

Because like secular science they only have how the world reacts now.

 

[dlamberth]

Because like secular science they only have how the world reacts now.

How did the world react before now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because like secular science they only have how the world reacts now.

That does not prevent them from developing a hypothesis. One could still hypothesize and test how God supposedly created the world. You are making the error of assuming that an event needs to be reproduced. Only the observations of the event need to be reproducible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, that's why science is so limited and ultimately doesn't explain reality very well. It puts human reasoning in a little box. No one can be satisfied with only science. We are also spiritual beings.

One hundred percent backwards. That is why science works so well. It works better than any other problem solving method out there.

Unfortunately people on your side cannot even come up with consistent definitions for their terms, much less evidence for them.

 

[Kylie]

Are you able to imagine a miracle that doesn't involve materializing fish? How about a miracle in which God divinely intervenes within a thunderstorm and makes a lightening bolt strike a tree. This is purely hypothetical, yet it happens each year and is actually somewhat common. It doesn't involve making any matter come into existence, and operates with use of things already present. The lightening bolt doesn't have to hit the tree, yet in this particular case, it does. We do have a naturalistic explanation [generally speaking] for why lightening strikes where it does, and yet, despite what we think we know about lightening, none of us really has any ability to say one way or another if lightening will or will not hit this hypothetical tree.

I would say that God could operate within our universe, in ways right before our eyes, in ways that we cannot predict or control. Only God would be able to predict and control the precise nature of how such events occur.

And none of this has to involve fish materializing out of thin air.

Let's see if we can make another example.

Radioactive material may decay in ways that we cannot predict and we cannot control. In some sense we can make broad predictions based on probabilities. We think that maybe a particle will be emitted in some general amount of time.

I think another atheist here in these forums worded this in ways that maybe I should have paid more attention to. And I'll see if I can find that discussion, but there was this lingering question of why any individual particle was emitted at any particular time during radioactive decay.

The question challenged me because it's a question that we can't really say when or how or even why any particular particle emits at any particular time.

It is true that a parent material may be energetically instable, thus being what we consider a broad cause of decay. And yet this thought of mine still falls short of explaining why any particular particle emits at any particular time. We can't predict it or control it, we don't know why certain subatomic particles move when they do or even where they do.

And in this case, who's to say that God would not operate in this realm in which we have no control over or can't predict when or why events occur when they do, or how they do.

If God stepped in and there was divine intervention in which a particle was emitted a fraction of a second sooner or later than any other moment than it naturally would have, we wouldn't see any difference in probability, We wouldn't see anything abnormal about the occurrence, it would just be a part of the unpredictable nature of reality and yet this very nature could be manipulated in natural ways.

And yet we don't need to invoke an act of God to explain lightning strikes or radioactive decay.

When it comes to 5000 fish appearing out of thin air, we do need to invoke an act of God to explain it.

So I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

[pitabread]

Yes. The fall corrupted the world and everything on it.

How did DNA replication change? What made it imperfect?

 

[Kylie]

Well it's just that "miracle" doesn't have to equate to fish duplication. That's all I'm saying. Why assume that I am a biblical literalist that might believe in such an interpretation.

I'm thinking more along the lines of God manipulating events through divine intervention, in ways in which to a regular observer, an event may appear to be random or without meaning, but in actuality could be not random at all but directed with a purpose.

The only reason I'm talking about fish duplication is because it's a convenient example. I'm happy to use another "must invoke an act of God to explain it" example if you'd like.