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

[Job 33:6]

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

We don't need to, though it may very well be the case of where God operates. I'm just saying that because we can't determine why particles emit when they do and where they do, God could very well operate in realms that we have yet to understand on a subatomic level that permeates the very fabric of reality. Thereby divinely intervening within logical ways to effect the outcomes of events. And it doesn't have to be just with lightening bolts and radioactive decay, it could be on a subatomic level in any environment.

If God directed a subatomic particle to produce a mutation in an individual, would anyone ever see it? It could be divine intervention right before our eyes in a way which would be logically sensible to us (perhaps we wouldn't even be aware of God's action but rather would assume that maybe a rogue or random photon from the sun caused it).

Of course we don't have to believe God plays a role. But of course this was never a pre requisite to the question of if miracles via divine intervention could occur in logical ways.

 

[Kylie]

We don't need to, though it may very well be the case of where God operates. I'm just saying that because we can't determine why particles emit when they do and where they do, God could very well operate in realms that we have yet to understand on a subatomic level that permeates the very fabric of reality. Thereby divinely intervening within logical ways to effect the outcomes of events. And it doesn't have to be just with lightening bolts and radioactive decay, it could be on a subatomic level in any environment.

If God directed a subatomic particle to produce a mutation in an individual, would anyone ever see it? It could be divine intervention right before our eyes in a way which would be logically sensible to us (perhaps we wouldn't even be aware of God's action but rather would assume that maybe a rogue or random photon from the sun caused it).

Of course we don't have to believe God plays a role. But of course this was never a pre requisite to the question of if miracles via divine intervention could occur in logical ways.

Of course, if we were to accept this as the realm of miracles - that they are things that God could be taking action in, but then again, might not - then it leads us to the conclusion that the same applies for things like the creation of the universe.

Is it really your intent to suggest that God isn't required for the creation of the universe?

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course, if we were to accept this as the realm of miracles - that they are things that God could be taking action in, but then again, might not - then it leads us to the conclusion that the same applies for things like the creation of the universe.

Is it really your intent to suggest that God isn't required for the creation of the universe?

At the end of the day, I'd say we don't know. But we have freedom to believe that there is something more. Why we have a universe in which we can even contemplate these questions rather than all of us being mindless stones in an endless universe of floating gravel. And when we look at world religions, when we look at Christianity in particular, we see an expression coming out of mankind in an effort to seek the Lord. Some people read the new testament and they think about talking pigs running off of cliffs or maybe they read something about a naked 1,000 year old man eating an apple, or fish magically duplicating in space and time.

But when I read the NT, I see a rich story of struggle, of hope and of salvation (if you haven't read through Romans and Ephesians at least a dozen times, you're missing the meaning of scripture). Permeated with moral lessons that remain true to this very day.

I think about when Jesus healed the centurions ear, when they came to take him out of the garden of Gethsemane. I see Jesus telling those who are without sin to cast the first stone, and Jesus protecting the weak and the vulnerable, and healing them as well. Jesus calling on his apostles to follow him into the sea, to trust in his word. I see a continual effort to unify the Jews and gentiles, the barbarians and Greeks and all others. And God laying down the lay for people who most certainly need it.

It's a great story of moral good and unity. I know critics will point at parts of scripture where God kills newborns or where dinosaurs climb on an ark. But these are kind of like oddly derived side thoughts to the real historical epic that is the Bible.

I personally think Dawkins account of the "tyrannical malevolent bully" is really a somewhat lazy approach to scripture. As if Dawkins completely missed the entire collection of the Pauline epistles.

And personally I find scripture inspiring but also I think it strongly relates and plays into the burning questions we have about why we are here and why the universe is as it is where we can ponder these questions.

And hence why I choose to believe, though as all others we do not truly know.

 

[renniks]

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

Science observes part of what is, never all.

 

[renniks]

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.

Science isn't the holy grail. It can not see solve what it can't explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science isn't the holy grail. It can not see solve what it can't explain.

No one said it was. But science can solve quite a few problems. Our communicating here is an example of that. And the history of life is one of the problems that it can solve quite well. The problem with creationism is that it is just wrong and has no support at all.

 

[coffee4u]

How did DNA replication change? What made it imperfect?

Every life state was corrupted and weakened at the fall so each time the DNA made a copy the chance of a mistake occurring was there. Once a mutation in the sequence had occurred some would be carried forward, gathering more mutations as time passed.
DNA is also affected by outside sources like radiation, chemicals and viruses. Viruses came with the fall, higher radiation levels came after the flood, chemicals came later. Given all of these things it's a wonder the world is even working as well as it is. Which is another reason why Creation science believes in a young earth, an old earth winding down from perfection into chaos would have already self destructed. Again CS is not really my field so if you want a better more comprehensive reply you may want to ask someone who is deeper into it.

 

[coffee4u]

How did the world react before now?

The Bible gives us some details and clues to how the world at creation was, but it doesn't list all the changes since God is not concerned about us knowing all those details but rather is concerned for our souls.

There was no death of creatures with a soul. 'death' of other creatures and plants was not called 'death'.
Man was vegetarian and all animals were herbivores with no fear of mankind.
It didn't rain but water came up from under the ground
Surrounding the world was a vapor canopy at the right thickness to ensure long life and long growth to certain creatures.
All types of outer space radiation was kept out or greatly reduced because of this protective canopy.
There were no mutations to man or animals before the fall, these started to accumulate more after the flood.

So something like radioactive dating uses known states of decay, those decay rates were not the same. Just because the nucleus of an atom is unstable now, doesn't mean it was at creation. Instability would be the result of the fall and the flood. Just because things work one way now does not mean they always did.
Even secular science says the decay half-life of a radioactive material can be changed.
Can the decay half-life of a radioactive material be changed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every life state was corrupted and weakened at the fall so each time the DNA made a copy the chance of a mistake occurring was there. Once a mutation in the sequence had occurred some would be carried forward, gathering more mutations as time passed.
DNA is also affected by outside sources like radiation, chemicals and viruses. Viruses came with the fall, higher radiation levels came after the flood, chemicals came later. Given all of these things it's a wonder the world is even working as well as it is. Which is another reason why Creation science believes in a young earth, an old earth winding down from perfection into chaos would have already self destructed. Again CS is not really my field so if you want a better more comprehensive reply you may want to ask someone who is deeper into it.

But there was no flood. That story fails incredibly badly. When was this supposed flood? Why is there no scientific evidence at all for it. Reading Genesis literally is terrible theology, terrible history, and even worse science.

 

[Kylie]

At the end of the day, I'd say we don't know. But we have freedom to believe that there is something more. Why we have a universe in which we can even contemplate these questions rather than all of us being mindless stones in an endless universe of floating gravel. And when we look at world religions, when we look at Christianity in particular, we see an expression coming out of mankind in an effort to seek the Lord. Some people read the new testament and they think about talking pigs running off of cliffs or maybe they read something about a naked 1,000 year old man eating an apple, or fish magically duplicating in space and time.

But when I read the NT, I see a rich story of struggle, of hope and of salvation (if you haven't read through Romans and Ephesians at least a dozen times, you're missing the meaning of scripture). Permeated with moral lessons that remain true to this very day.

I think about when Jesus healed the centurions ear, when they came to take him out of the garden of Gethsemane. I see Jesus telling those who are without sin to cast the first stone, and Jesus protecting the weak and the vulnerable, and healing them as well. Jesus calling on his apostles to follow him into the sea, to trust in his word. I see a continual effort to unify the Jews and gentiles, the barbarians and Greeks and all others. And God laying down the lay for people who most certainly need it.

It's a great story of moral good and unity. I know critics will point at parts of scripture where God kills newborns or where dinosaurs climb on an ark. But these are kind of like oddly derived side thoughts to the real historical epic that is the Bible.

I personally think Dawkins account of the "tyrannical malevolent bully" is really a somewhat lazy approach to scripture. As if Dawkins completely missed the entire collection of the Pauline epistles.

And personally I find scripture inspiring but also I think it strongly relates and plays into the burning questions we have about why we are here and why the universe is as it is where we can ponder these questions.

And hence why I choose to believe, though as all others we do not truly know.

I really don't see what any of that has to do with what I've been saying.

 

[Job 33:6]

I really don't see what any of that has to do with what I've been saying.

Alright. You're welcome to elaborate on your position.

I thought my response directly answered your question.

 

[Kylie]

Alright. You're welcome to elaborate on your position.

I thought my response directly answered your question.

I'm trying to ask a simple question: If God is only able to do what is logically possible, then how is he capable of performing miracles?

You're sending the discussion off on a tangent towards your emotional reactions and what you want to believe.

 

[renniks]

No one said it was. But science can solve quite a few problems. Our communicating here is an example of that. And the history of life is one of the problems that it can solve quite well. The problem with creationism is that it is just wrong and has no support at all.

If you ever choose to sail into the mystic you will find out that life is more than mere "facts" and that much of what you think is reality is only the surface of a much deeper reality. It's actually what makes life worthwhile.

 

[pitabread]

Every life state was corrupted and weakened at the fall so each time the DNA made a copy the chance of a mistake occurring was there.

But how? If DNA could be copied perfectly prior to Fall, what is the specific molecular mechanisms that made that possible?

Was it a case of DNA replication itself being perfect? Was it the DNA repair mechanisms being perfect?

What exactly was at work that made DNA replication perfect?

DNA is also affected by outside sources like radiation, chemicals and viruses. Viruses came with the fall, higher radiation levels came after the flood, chemicals came later.

How did viruses appear with Fall? How did radiation show up after the flood? (Note: this directly contradicts Young-Earth creationist findings like the RATE project)

What do you mean by chemicals "came later"? What chemicals?

. Which is another reason why Creation science believes in a young earth, an old earth winding down from perfection into chaos would have already self destructed.

We don't have any reason to assume this is true, since we have no basis for what a "perfect" Earth would even look like.

If anything the opposite is more likely since the early Earth would have been hostile to living organisms.

Again CS is not really my field so if you want a better more comprehensive reply you may want to ask someone who is deeper into it.

Unfortunately there are no creationists that post on this sub-forum that seem that "deep" into it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm trying to ask a simple question: If God is only able to do what is logically possible, then how is he capable of performing miracles?

You're sending the discussion off on a tangent towards your emotional reactions and what you want to believe.

I gave examples above of divine intervention by logical means, thereby answering the "how". Ie God could manipulate subatomic particles in ways that we would perceive to be logical. Such as divinely intervening and re-directing a lightening bolt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you ever choose to sail into the mystic you will find out that life is more than mere "facts" and that much of what you think is reality is only the surface of a much deeper reality. It's actually what makes life worthwhile.

This is a claim that never seems to be supported. Believing in woo woo leads to quite a bit of confirmation bias. It would be much more convincing if there was reliable evidence for it.

 

[Phred]

Science observes part of what is, never all.

Name one thing that is verifiably real that science does not observe and report upon.

Just.
One.
Thing.

 

[dlamberth]

If you ever choose to sail into the mystic you will find out that life is more than mere "facts" and that much of what you think is reality is only the surface of a much deeper reality. It's actually what makes life worthwhile.

Mystics have no trouble welcoming scientific trajectories like Evolution. They tend to welcome scientific inquiry as they find the spiritual aspect within. What the mystic is able to do is to bring the spiritual into matter. Science is about the study of matter. That's a pretty wide arena to cover, but by the nature of both the spiritual and science as being different ways of knowing, science isn't able to go into the spiritual aspect of things. And so rejects it as Woo Woo.

 

[renniks]

Name one thing that is verifiably real that science does not observe and report upon.

Just.
One.
Thing.

God. Love. The soul.

 

[dlamberth]

This is a claim that never seems to be supported. Believing in woo woo leads to quite a bit of confirmation bias. It would be much more convincing if there was reliable evidence for it.

The problem here is the question of who or what is considered "reliable evidence". What's the bar for "reliable evidence". I'm quite certain that in the realm of mystics there are people whom many in the world consider completely reliable. These are the same people where you would have a very hard time with. My own take? Both science AND the mystic provide that reliable evidence, only in different ways building a more complete picture. I find that they work hand in hand.