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

[Phred]

God. Love. The soul.

God - not real
Love - real and totally observed and reported on by scientists.
The "soul" - not real

 

[dlamberth]

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.

This builds upon an image of God that I totally reject, and in fact contributed to my de-conversion. That's because it paints a picture very much like the Greek/Roman Pagan gods who were standing high up on a mountain or like Christianity, in the sky somewhere shooting lightening bolts and stuff around in anger. God isn't manipulating subatomic particles to affect the physical world like the Greek/Roman Pagan gods might do.

 

[dlamberth]

God - not real
Love - real and totally observed and reported on by scientists.
The "soul" - not real

It depends upon a person's reality.

In my world, God (not the kind sitting in the sky somewhere) is completely real and a reality.
Love - yes, very real and very important for us to be a more human, Human Being.
Soul - I work with the Spark of the Soul which has everything to do with Love. So very real to me.

 

[Phred]

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.

If it helps the term "verifiable evidence" works much better. Can you or anyone else find that evidence and review it and then determine the same outcome?

If someone says they saw Bigfoot. That's not verifiable evidence. If someone catches Bigfoot and places it in a cage and you can go see it. That's verifiable evidence.

A "mystic" does not provide verifiable evidence. Science does.

 

[Phred]

It depends upon a person's reality.

In my world, God (not the kind sitting in the sky somewhere) is completely real and a reality.
Love - yes, very real and very important for us to be a more human, Human Being.
Soul - I work with the Spark of the Soul which has everything to do with Love. So very real to me.

A person's reality does not matter. Real has a specific meaning. Not one that is "real to you and not real to me." It's either real to everyone or it isn't real. Jupiter is real, not just to people with eyesight good enough to see it. Saturn is real too. Uranus is real and not just to people with telescopes.

God is not real. It's not because I don't have a "telescope." It's because there is no evidence that has ever been presented to suggest God is real. People were told about God. It's how they found out that the concept of God existed. Then they started fitting experiences into their thoughts. Someone survived a terrible illness. God saved them. They "heard" a voice. God. But none of these things are verifiable evidence. Everyone is saying things that others praise them for. If you question people and do it alone you find that their actual personal idea of what God is varies wildly. It's not as if there actually is some being out there leading this belief. And nobody has ever walked out of the rainforest having never had contact with civilization and told us about Jesus.

We all have a "spark" if you will. We're alive. There isn't a special thing that exists in all of us called a "soul" that goes on after we die. That would be nice but... we are manifested by our bodies. When our bodies cease to function so do we.

 

[dlamberth]

If it helps the term "verifiable evidence" works much better. Can you or anyone else find that evidence and review it and then determine the same outcome?

If someone says they saw Bigfoot. That's not verifiable evidence. If someone catches Bigfoot and places it in a cage and you can go see it. That's verifiable evidence.

A "mystic" does not provide verifiable evidence. Science does.

It depends on what kind of "verifiable evidence" one is talking about. Mystics all the time are able to verify each others evidence. Just because science works in a different realm doesn't mean that what the mystic experiences doesn't exist. The evidence of the mystic presents to the world often comes forward as wisdom that helps us to become better Human Beings. It's a different way of knowing than catching Bigfoot for observation and study. To look for the same will never work if that's a persons want.

 

[Phred]

It depends on what kind of "verifiable evidence" one is talking about. Mystics all the time are able to verify each others evidence. Just because science works in a different realm doesn't mean that what the mystic experiences doesn't exist. The evidence of the mystic presents to the world often comes forward as wisdom that helps us to become better Human Beings. It's a different way of knowing than catching Bigfoot for observation and study. To look for the same will never work if that's a persons want.

This is why we invented the scientific method. It prevents two guys from smoking so much weed they just agree that something is correct. I'm sorry. You will never convince me that two guys saying they both saw Bigfoot yesterday means they actually saw Bigfoot.

It's not a way of knowing anything. It's a way of saying a lot of words.

 

[dlamberth]

A person's reality does not matter. Real has a specific meaning. Not one that is "real to you and not real to me." It's either real to everyone or it isn't real. Jupiter is real, not just to people with eyesight good enough to see it. Saturn is real too. Uranus is real and not just to people with telescopes.

The best demonstration I can give on how reality does matter is in the political right/left divide here in America. Another example is when a person see's the Divine in another Human Being, they are going to treat them much differently than when they don't. It's all about a person's reality. When a person's reality is such that they see the Divine in the Earth and even in the Evolutionary process, they are going to treat Nature much differently then when they don't. A person's reality is really important. But none of that takes way from Saturn or Uranus being real too.

God is not real. It's not because I don't have a "telescope." It's because there is no evidence that has ever been presented to suggest God is real. People were told about God. It's how they found out that the concept of God existed. Then they started fitting experiences into their thoughts. Someone survived a terrible illness. God saved them. They "heard" a voice. God. But none of these things are verifiable evidence. Everyone is saying things that others praise them for. If you question people and do it alone you find that their actual personal idea of what God is varies wildly. It's not as if there actually is some being out there leading this belief. And nobody has ever walked out of the rainforest having never had contact with civilization and told us about Jesus.

It's all personal. I'm different than you in that God is completely real and and an absolute reality for me. But nothing like you just described.

We all have a "spark" if you will. We're alive. There isn't a special thing that exists in all of us called a "soul" that goes on after we die. That would be nice but... we are manifested by our bodies. When our bodies cease to function so do we.

That the soul goes on after we die...I have no idea about that. I'll let you know when I die.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

If it just convinces the person with the beliefs the by definition it is not reliable evidence. If the evidence can be repeated by countless others without contradiction then it is reliable evidence.

Mystics do not provide reliable evidence for their beliefs, which is why they are called "mystics" in the first place. In this case the etymology of the word tells you a lot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends on what kind of "verifiable evidence" one is talking about. Mystics all the time are able to verify each others evidence. Just because science works in a different realm doesn't mean that what the mystic experiences doesn't exist. The evidence of the mystic presents to the world often comes forward as wisdom that helps us to become better Human Beings. It's a different way of knowing than catching Bigfoot for observation and study. To look for the same will never work if that's a persons want.

No, they really are not. Now some may agree with what others say. For example there are the Art Bells of the world that will agree with any nutty thing that is told them. And tomorrow they will agree with another nut that makes extremely different claims. You may not understand what is and what is not evidence.

 

[dlamberth]

This is why we invented the scientific method. It prevents two guys from smoking so much weed they just agree that something is correct. I'm sorry. You will never convince me that two guys saying they both saw Bigfoot yesterday means they actually saw Bigfoot.

It's not a way of knowing anything. It's a way of saying a lot of words.

I understand. We have to agree to disagree.

In a lot of ways mysticism is the study of the human mind and consciousness. Science doesn't do consciousness very well. It can try to study it, but it doesn't get into the act of the human consciousness experience. And until that's looked at I do get that all you'll ever get from the mystics are a lot of words. That's understandable.

What's interesting, at least to me, is that there is a movement afoot to bring the spiritual and science together. The Dalai Lama for instance has done a lot of work in that arena, as have others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand. We have to agree to disagree.

In a lot of ways mysticism is the study of the human mind and consciousness. Science doesn't do consciousness very well. It can try to study it, but it doesn't get into the act of the human consciousness experience. And until that's looked at I do get that all you'll ever get from the mystics are a lot of words. That's understandable.

What's interesting, at least to me, is that there is a movement afoot to bring the spiritual and science together. The Dalai Lama for instance has done a lot of work in that arena, as have others.

Until they have a systemic method of making their investigations they are likely going to be limited to the world of woo woo.

 

[Job 33:6]

This builds upon an image of God that I totally reject, and in fact contributed to my de-conversion. That's because it paints a picture very much like the Greek/Roman Pagan gods who were standing high up on a mountain or like Christianity, in the sky somewhere shooting lightening bolts and stuff around in anger. God isn't manipulating subatomic particles to affect the physical world like the Greek/Roman Pagan gods might do.

Why not? It's not like you know why subatomic particles move in particular directions at particular times. So who is to say that there isn't more to it beyond say, just random chance?

 

[dlamberth]

If it just convinces the person with the beliefs the by definition it is not reliable evidence. If the evidence can be repeated by countless others without contradiction then it is reliable evidence.

There are countless mystics in the world who are repeating without contradiction what other are doing. It's not that hopeless.

Mystics do not provide reliable evidence for their beliefs, which is why they are called "mystics" in the first place. In this case the etymology of the word tells you a lot.

That's not at all why mystics are called mystics. It has everything to do with hidden mysteries. And it doesn't tell you how a mystic does what a mystic does. Your short sheeting mysticism. To explore that angle will require an exploration of consciousness. Can human consciousness bring the kind of knowledge to the table that works hand and hand with science? And to take this even further into the Human psyche, the mystic experience is an aspect of the Human experience.

 

[dlamberth]

Until they have a systemic method of making their investigations they are likely going to be limited to the world of woo woo.

I know it's not in your awareness, but the mystics are making world wide effects upon humanity. There's a LOT of wisdom coming forth from that arena that is benefiting human kind. If one lives in a world limited by matter, that's all they will see around them. Fortunately there's a lot more to it than that that a lot of people are becoming consciously aware of.

 

[dlamberth]

Why not? It's not like you know why subatomic particles move in particular directions at particular times. So who is to say that there isn't more to it beyond say, just random chance?

I think there is more to it than just random chance. I just don't know of a God sitting up yonder in the sky somewhere directing it all. Sometimes out of anger, sometime in jealousy and such. That's where for me it gets too much into the realm of Greek/Roman gods.

 

[dlamberth]

Until they have a systemic method of making their investigations they are likely going to be limited to the world of woo woo.

I was thinking about this on my drive this morning and realized something. I don't know if it was in this thread or another but you guys were having a pretty high (to me) level discussion with formulas and stuff. I tried reading it but to me it was just a much of words. At my level it was totally Woo Woo physics stuff. I tried but couldn't understand any of it. All I got out of it is that there are some pretty intelligent people on this form who are able to understand each other. It's the same kind of thing in the world of mystics.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think there is more to it than just random chance. I just don't know of a God sitting up yonder in the sky somewhere directing it all. Sometimes out of anger, sometime in jealousy and such. That's where for me it gets too much into the realm of Greek/Roman gods.

Ok. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm going with the God hypothesis.

 

[Phred]

Ok. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm going with the God hypothesis.

I guess I just don't have the slightest idea why people do this. I can't imagine looking at the universe and coming to the conclusion that this is the result of a God. It's beyond me that anyone could.

 

[renniks]

God - not real
Love - real and totally observed and reported on by scientists.
The "soul" - not real

93 percent of the world's population disagrees with you, and sees evidence for God.
So either you are wrong or they are. I know which one I find more convincing.