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

[Frank Robert]

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.

Believing that there is evidence is not the same as there being actual evidence.

 

[renniks]

Believing that there is evidence is not the same as there being actual evidence.

Believing there's no evidence isn't the same thing as there being no evidence.

 

[Phred]

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.

Oh no. You don't get away with that one. Of that 93% they would kill each other of the differences of their beliefs. 3 billion say that the Muslim belief is correct while another 2 billion say that the Christian belief is correct. Another 1 billion say it's something else all together. So that 93% can't even agree on what that "god" is. And I know within the Christian group there are over 30,000 sects that argue constantly. And you think because they all use the word "god" it's the same thing they all believe in? HA! Not hardly.

Just because people were told that a god exists doesn't mean a god exists.

People also believe the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from space. You can't see it from space.

What anyone believes doesn't change reality one little bit.

 

[Phred]

Believing there's no evidence isn't the same thing as there being no evidence.

Oh, well why didn't you say so. Just produce the evidence.

 

[Frank Robert]

Believing there's no evidence isn't the same thing as there being no evidence.

Think again. Belief is unnecessary for evidence which either exists or does not exist. When someone says that there is evidence for God it reminds of an interview with Bill Moyers where Joseph Campbell relates an experience he had:

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: I had a very amusing experience, which might be well worth telling. I was in the New York Athletic Club swimming pool, and you know, you don’t wear your collar this way or that way when you’re in a swimming pool. And I was introduced to a priest, “This is Father So-and-so, this is Joseph Campbell.” I’m a professor, he’s a professor at one of our Catholic universities. So after I’d had my swim, I came and sat down beside, in what we call, you know, the horizontal athlete situation, and the priest is beside me. And he said, “Mr. Campbell, are you a priest?” I said, “No, Father.” He said, “Are you a Catholic?” I said, “I was, Father.” He said, and now he had the sense to ask it this way, “Do you believe in a personal God?” I said, “No, Father.” And he said, “Well, I suppose there is no way to prove by logic the existence of a personal God.” And I said, “If there were, Father, what would be the value of faith?” “Well, Mr. Campbell, it’s nice to have met you.” And he was off.
​

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

I sincerely doubt that. If this is true you should be able to support this claim.

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.

I never said that was why there are called mystics. But the fact they apparently cannot support their beliefs properly leads to the bigger mystery of why people still believe in them.

And once again, please provide evidence for your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, most people simply do not understand the concept of evidence. They may think that they see evidence for God, but all of the evidence that I have ever seen falls apart when examined.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Science is not that hard to understand. And observation of reliable evidence is repeatable and confirmable. You may not understand but it is possible to learn. Mystics do not appear to be able to claim the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Sorry, but this is just an empty claim. I am betting that you cannot even define your terms properly much less support them.

Let's drop the empty claims They do not convince any rational thinker. Make a claim and support it with evidence.

 

[dlamberth]

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

Believe it or not, I do the same.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

OK, so you do have a reason.

Oh, wait... looking back at your post, I can now see it was slightly ambiguous - the 'without any real clear reason why' could apply to either the 'I believe that there is reason and purpose for us' or the 'existing, seemingly at random'. On closer reading, the punctuation suggests the latter. My mistake, I withdraw the comment.

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.

I'm sorry, I can't see how any of that answers my question... I know the basic ideas of Christianity, and I understand what you said, but I don't see how that relates to 'justify humanity'... in what sense is it 'making whole what was incomplete' and extorting humanity?

It just occurred to me, by 'justify humanity' do you mean 'make humanity just'?

 

[dlamberth]

Science is not that hard to understand. And observation of reliable evidence is repeatable and confirmable. You may not understand but it is possible to learn. Mystics do not appear to be able to claim the same.

I do understand. I love and follow science way more than you might think. I also love the mystics, which looks to me like your not understanding at all, nor wanting to do so. You may fight against the pull, but as mentioned previously there's a lot of work being done in a lot of different quarters that is bringing the spiritual and science together.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do understand. I love and follow science way more than you might think. I also love the mystics, which looks to me like your not understanding at all, nor wanting to do so. You may fight against the pull, but as mentioned previously there's a lot of work being done in a lot of different quarters that is bringing the spiritual and science together.

Once again, evidence please. Empty claims are rightfully dismissed.
Worse yet if one cannot provide evidence after one reasonable asks for it that tells the world that you are almost certainly wrong.

 

[dlamberth]

Sorry, but this is just an empty claim. I am betting that you cannot even define your terms properly much less support them.

Which terms are you referring to, I'll give it a try.

With mysticism though, terms and ideas are brought in as an "experience" of consciousness and not so much as definitions, which is what your demanding. Most of us are living in what the Buddhist call a monkey mind. I'm sure you've heard that term. The mystic tends to be more aware of and living in consciousness and not so much monkey mind. So rather than thinking their way through life, which is your trajectory, they are experiencing life more directly with out all of the mental clutter of concepts and such. Is that making sense to you?

Let's drop the empty claims They do not convince any rational thinker. Make a claim and support it with evidence.

Here's the claim. Human Beings, more than any other creature on this planet responds to Love.

As for evidence, look inward at our own being and see what we see in ourselves in that regard. How has those moments of Love or lack up touched us, for instance. Any rational person when experiencing Love can see that we Human Beings and society as a whole do much better in a world where Love is the norm. It's something we can see...at least a lot of us can anyway. I wish more would.

Put yourself into the plight of other human beings who have been abused and broken rather than living in a place of Love. Our streets here in Portland are full of examples of those poor souls. Any rational person when touched by empathy will see that these human beings need help. And that there's a lot we can do to help them but the lack of Love in society married with politics gets into the way of doing good by them.

Put yourself into the biosphere of the Earth and it's life forms that has been abused, raped and desecrated rather than Loved and experienced as Sacred and One. Feeling it from inside of us has a way of giving a deeper meaning and understanding. And from there any rational person can see that with a different life perspective it need not be this way, and that we may even be causing our own demise as a species.

 

[dlamberth]

Once again, evidence please. Empty claims are rightfully dismissed.
Worse yet if one cannot provide evidence after one reasonable asks for it that tells the world that you are almost certainly wrong.

There's so much to explore. But I'll let you do your own research by pointing you in the direction by Googling suggested subjects like "The intersection of Science and Religion",
or "Science and Religion", or maybe the "Dalai Lama and Science", or something like "On the Intersection of Science and Religion". There's a lot more examples of the work being done that is bringing science and the spiritual together.

 

[Frank Robert]

Here's the claim. Human Beings, more than any other creature on this planet responds to Love.

Just curious. Have you ever read any of Rumi's poetry. Jalal ad-Din Mohammad Rumi was a 13th-century Persian poet, Hanafi faqih, Islamic scholar, Maturidi theologian, and Sufi mystic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... science isn't able to go into the spiritual aspect of things. And so rejects it as Woo Woo.

That's not quite correct. Scientists tend to reject arbitrary untestable explanations that aren't consistent with the laws of physics as woo, in much the same way they reject perpetual motion machines.

But science can and does go into the spiritual aspect of things in the only way it can, by looking for correlations between reports of spiritual experiences and physical activity, particularly activity in the brain. What they find is that stimulating particular brain areas results in reports of various kinds of spiritual and transcendent experiences; the actions of certain psychotropic drugs have similar effects. Individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy also may report overwhelming revelatory spiritual experiences during or following seizures. These experiences do not seem to manifest when brain activity is relatively normal.

The repeatability and specificity of these correlations suggest the brain is intimately involved, either in producing the experiences or 'echoing' them in some way. Most scientists think the former is likely to be the better explanation, as it is testable, parsimonious, congruent with known physical laws, doesn't raise significant new questions (although we still have the 'hard question' of consciousness), has a unifying explanatory scope, and has potential for providing a deeper explanatory insight into the nature of these experiences.

YMMV.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God. Love. The soul.

Science certainly investigates love - check out Google scholar for "neurobiology of love". The other two are not objectively verifiable, although some work was done (long ago) on the potential physicality of the soul - trying to weigh it by the difference in weight between a person dying and dead.

 

[dlamberth]

Just curious. Have you ever read any of Rumi's poetry. Jalal ad-Din Mohammad Rumi was a 13th-century Persian poet, Hanafi faqih, Islamic scholar, Maturidi theologian, and Sufi mystic.

Yes.

 

[Phred]

Science certainly investigates love - check out Google scholar for "neurobiology of love". The other two are not objectively verifiable, although some work was done (long ago) on the potential physicality of the soul - trying to weigh it by the difference in weight between a person dying and dead.

Six people were weighed immediately before and after death. One of the six showed a difference of 21 grams. In 1901 Duncan MacDougall weighed patients in nursing homes who were in danger of leaving us in short order. "One of the patients lost weight but then put the weight back on, and two of the other patients registered a loss of weight at death but a few minutes later lost even more weight. One of the patients lost "three-fourths of an ounce" (21.3 grams) in weight, coinciding with the time of death." He later ran the experiment on 15 dogs as well. None of the dogs showed any changes in their weight after death.

It did make for the title of a movie though, 21 Grams.