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

[Kylie]

Then explain it to me. How does one give the spiritual "a chance"? What exactly are you referring to?

Just decide to believe. You probably won't get any actual testable evidence, but it doesn't matter, since by that point you're already a believer and so you won't be very interested in trying to disprove it.

That's how it works, right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am never prepared for Feynman's accent.

I'm used to it, but it is a little odd...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What part is self-contradictory? Maybe we can clear it up.

You said consciousness isn't at all rational, yet you were, presumably, conscious and rational when you wrote that.

And the rest of the time?

Not rational, experiential.

When looking at trees, plants and life in general, Native Americans don't relate to any of that as nouns. Rather they experience it all as verbs. Its a spiritual perspective for them.

Is that what they call it? And what kind of spiritual perspective is it - 'relating to deep feelings and beliefs' or 'concerned with religious values, supernatural beings, or phenomena'?

 

[renniks]

Actually it is rather boring to think that there is a simple answer for everything. Figuring out why is way less boring than just saying Goddidit to everything.

There's nothing simple about God.

 

[renniks]

Why would you think that? The universe is fascinating with or without some divine creator.

Nothing created everything for no reason? Boring!

 

[renniks]

So you are suggesting that the explanation is both that it is a completely rational and evidence based naturalistic process, and AT THE SAME EXACT TIME it is supernatural and scientifically inexplicable?

First science doesn't explain everything. It doesn't even know why everything exists. All it says is how some pieces function. So yes it can be both, given how little we actually know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First science doesn't explain everything. It doesn't even know why everything exists. All it says is how some pieces function. So yes it can be both, given how little we actually know.

Science does not explain everything. No one claimed that. But your bit about the supernatural is just nonsense. The problem with the supernatural is that it is just an excuse that some use when they do not understand something. It fails at being an explanation and is dropped when one does understand how an event occurred.

 

[pitabread]

Nothing created everything for no reason? Boring!

Why boring?

Do you not find the universe interesting without a divine creator?

 

[renniks]

Why boring?

Do you not find the universe interesting without a divine creator?

I just explained why.
And order doesn't create itself out of chaos.
Now or ever. It takes intention to create order.

 

[pitabread]

I just explained why.
And order doesn't create itself out of chaos.
Now or ever. It takes intention to create order.

What does that have to do with finding the universe interesting?

And insofar as chaos/order goes, read up on chaos theory some time. In turns out order can come from disorder. Heck if that weren't possible, then snow wouldn't exist.

 

[renniks]

What does that have to do with finding the universe interesting?

What exactly is interesting about nothing creating everything for no reason?
It's all pointless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just explained why.
And order doesn't create itself out of chaos.
Now or ever. It takes intention to create order.

As @pitabread pointed out a mere snowflake refutes your claim. Creationists do not understand "order" at least as far as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics goes. The universe began as a very ordered body and its order has continually decreased since then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What exactly is interesting about nothing creating everything for no reason?
It's all pointless.

Life is worth living. It is not pointless to me. Why invent something that creates an imaginary purpose?

 

[pitabread]

What exactly is interesting about nothing creating everything for no reason?
It's all pointless.

1) I don't think it's pointless.

2) We don't have the universe figured out, so there is lots to learn and discover. Discovering things and learning is interesting to me. Is that not interesting to you?

 

[jacknife]

I just explained why.
And order doesn't create itself out of chaos.
Now or ever. It takes intention to create order.

I couldn't disagree more, snow, the seasons even biological behavior all come from chaos. Chaos develops into order all the time the process is spiritual to me.

 

[Ophiolite]

What exactly is interesting about nothing creating everything for no reason?
It's all pointless.

If you find the universe so boring it is not surprising that you are so ignorant of what we have discovered so far about how it works. Our knowledge is increasing rapidly, almost exponetially. This is an incredibly interesting time to be alive. And yet you find nothing interesting and the subjects of our interest to be pointless. I feel sorry for you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing created everything for no reason? Boring!

You expect the universe to be interesting just for you? Some hubris.

 

[renniks]

As @pitabread pointed out a mere snowflake refutes your claim. Creationists do not understand "order" at least as far as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics goes. The universe began as a very ordered body and its order has continually decreased since then.

Which fits with the biblical narrative. What is disorderly about snow? It requires certain conditions to form, obviously.

 

[renniks]

1) I don't think it's pointless.

2) We don't have the universe figured out, so there is lots to learn and discover. Discovering things and learning is interesting to me. Is that not interesting to you?

Yes, because there's a point to it!
We aren't here by chance. Chaos didn't create us. We are designed for a purpose.
I get more of a thrill from exploring than about anything.

 

[dlamberth]

It is not rational evidence. It is almost always mere confirmation bias.

The spiritual isn't rational. It's something that's "experienced". Bold, underlined and in quotation marks for emphasis. Maybe I should use caps as well? Experiencing Love isn't rational, as an example. There's no way that rational evidence can describe Love. The knowledge gained of Love has to be experienced to be known. Not everything in the Human experience is rational. In fact I suspect that very little is.