Creationists: How does creation explain the existence of parasites?

durangodawood said:

This assumes our capacity to imagine a solution matches God's capacity.

I suppose God might have ran into a brick wall when trying to allow freedom without suffering. But given our limits, can we know that?

Click to expand...

I think that in a physical world, as our own, we simply couldn't have all suffering removed while not being extensively limited. Creation would have to be radically different.

I gave one example before that, imagine if I go to a pizza shop, I buy a slice of pizza and the taste isn't as good as I had expected it to be. Maybe it was slightly overcooked.

I would immediately experience some kind of disappointment and perhaps we could even call it sorrow. It's an imperfection and a form of suffering.

So what would it take to truly remove this experience from unfolding? Maybe I would need some kind of infinite awareness of all things so that my expectations are not let down. Or maybe the pizza itself would have to exist in a way in which it could never be over or under cooked. It could never be too hot or cold, could never be too tough or soft. Maybe pizza itself simply couldn't exist, nor any food at all, lest I be let down by a food that tasted bad.

To truly remove suffering, creation itself would have to be radically different.

My thought is that imperfection must be an attribute of creation, because nothing could be perfect but God himself. Even creation in Genesis was never described as being created perfectly, but rather it was merely good and very good. And thus some bad, some suffering existed even in the beginning.

But yes, all of this is based on mankind's limited understanding of origins of the universe.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

Hidden away? Mankind has no limitations on where we go, what stones we overturn, what tools or weapons we make, what foods we try eating etc.

Do you think God should have hidden all poisonous foods in out space so people couldn't get to it?

If you're going to attack a literal interpretation of genesis, all you had to do was tell us how women aren't made of rib bones or men of clay.

When it comes to God's wrath, independent of biblical literalism, God's wrath is justified. It begins with a warning, such as God telling Adam that if he eats of the fruit he shalt surely die. And it follows with mankind making a choice to disobey and to sin. Then God's wrath ensues. Ie, Adam and Eve die.

In the real world, every one of us are faced with these same dilemmas. We have the law, we have scripture to learn from, but many still choose to sin. People still choose to murder or steal, commit adultery, slander, disobey the Lord. But in the end, God gave us a free will to choose our actions.

He's not going to hide knives and guns out somewhere in the Orion nebula so we can't use them. He's not going to delete every cliff from existence so we don't trip off and die. He has given us the ability to choose and to live.

And that's really what Genesis comes down to (excluding all the marriage relate verses and statements of creation).

Click to expand...

You can move goalposts and try to redefine the subject being discussed as much as you like. You're still wrong when it comes to the actual subject being discussed.

Bungle_Bear said:

You can move goalposts and try to redefine the subject being discussed as much as you like. You're still wrong when it comes to the actual subject being discussed.

Click to expand...

I don't think I moved the goal posts at all. I think it's critics trying to decide who they do and do not want to address amongst creationists.

Here was the original statement by frumious:
" if you were a parent looking to give your child the freedom to make their own choices, I suggest that you would select a safe environment and not deliberately provide lethal options for those choices."

The shortcomings of this response are glaring. As if mankind doesn't consist of adults and that we are all ignorant children. As if God would "baby-proof" physical reality so that we couldt hurt ourselves (would God delete cracks in a sidewalk so that we wouldn't trip and fall too?).

And I simply responded by asking the question, what is God going to do, hide things like steak knives in outer space so that people cannot choose to use them in incorrect ways? Would we then use spoons to cut our steaks?

Should God have hidden this particular tree on Mars so that Adam and Eve wouldn't have gotten to it?

In order for the atheist critique to have meaning, it must be made against a 6,000 year old literalist interpretation of genesis. But I ask, why even bother trying to make logical arguments against a literalist interpretation? As if it needs to be more complicated than simply saying that human beings aren't made of clay.

When we look at the book of Genesis, and we ponder it's meaning with respect to God's wrath, ie why would God punish Adam when God didn't warn Adam in the first place, as ophiolite noted above, indeed, God did warn Adam, stating that Adam would surely die if he ate of the apple.

And this same truth is described by Paul in several of his books throughout the NT, where Paul describes God's wrath, and brokenness of the world, beginning through Adam, not as something God unleashed to punish ignorant children who accidentally stumble upon fruit trees, but rather it's released as a product of mature mankind's trespasses and sins in defiance of God, which is exactly what the book of Genesis is describing when Adam ate of the tree in spite of being warned.

The critique of Genesis being made here in this discussion has been made in a vacuum, as if the truth of this story of Genesis is only found in a young earth creationist perspective. But if we are going into boxing matches against toddlers, there are easier ways of going about it than trying to have logical arguments about building magic fences and hiding trees on the moon.

We don't live in mosaic times. When we go to church, aren't sitting around analyzing the question of why God wouldn't put an electrical fence up around the tree of knowledge. We are looking at Genesis as it pertains to the world and mankind today and of all time. This is with respect to questions of why suffering exists and why God allows it, or instructs it through his wrath. Why God allowed Adam to eat the apple (he gave mankind free will), why God's wrath against evil exists (man's trespasses), why suffering exists (a good and very good creation, but not a perfect creation). And this is what my response, as a creationist, is geared toward. Because of course not all of us are YECs.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

Yea yea . I'll keep dreaming of the day that the core of Christianity is challenged here. I'll be waiting.

Click to expand...

If you can describe the core of Christianity as you see it in terms of a claim or claims about events in the world, maybe it can be examined here.

A topic where the word "creationist" means more than someone who thinks that people battled in Roman style coliseums with dinosaurs.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a cue for a new thread...

Isaiah 41:10 said:

I don't think I moved the goal posts at all. I think it's critics trying to decide who they do and do not want to address amongst creationists.

Here was the original statement by frumious:
" if you were a parent looking to give your child the freedom to make their own choices, I suggest that you would select a safe environment and not deliberately provide lethal options for those choices."

The shortcomings of this response are glaring. As if mankind doesn't consist of adults and that we are all ignorant children. As if God would "baby-proof" physical reality so that we couldt hurt ourselves (would God delete cracks in a sidewalk so that we wouldn't trip and fall too?).

And I simply responded by asking the question, what is God going to do, hide things like steak knives in outer space so that people cannot choose to use them in incorrect ways? Would we then use spoons to cut our steaks?

Click to expand...

I've already explained that this is a misinterpretation of the context of my post.

Should God have hidden this particular tree on Mars so that Adam and Eve wouldn't have gotten to it?

Click to expand...

Why even create that particular tree? Are you suggesting that having freedom of choice necessitates a tree of knowledge of good and evil where choosing knowledge has catastrophic results?

Various other options would seem to be reasonable:

1. Leave A&E to their innocence, freely choosing among non-catastrophic options.
2. Give A&E knowledge of good & evil, either directly or by educating them.
3. Let A&E learn for themselves about good and evil in a non-catastrophic way.
4. etc.

pitabread said:

How did they accomplish that specifically?

Click to expand...

Warning! You are about to engage in the "how many angels can dance on the head of pin" argument. Are you certain you wish to continue?

Isaiah 41:10 said:

When we look at the book of Genesis, and we ponder it's meaning with respect to God's wrath, ie why would God punish Adam when God didn't warn Adam in the first place, as ophiolite noted above, indeed, God did warn Adam, stating that Adam would surely die if he ate of the apple.

Click to expand...

I see a way of addressing this, with some repetition of what you may feel you previously refuted, but at least avoiding the references that I think would be counter to forum rules.

You note that God did warn Adam. I've been reflecting on what constitutes a warning and, more to the point, what constitutes an effective and appropriate warning.

Today on the roads of most Western nations there are a variety of warning signs that tell motorists of dangers they may encounter on the road ahead. These might be falling rocks, shallow fords across small rivers, steep descents, etc. These are useful since the traveller can mentally prepare for how they will deal with these potentially adverse conditions. I imagine that the presence of these warning signs has helped prevent many accidents, death and serious injury.

Signs of this type were introduced in the UK, IIRC, in the 1950s. Prior to that one was alerted to dangers by a sign with an exclamation mark. Well, I suppose it is of some value, but are you looking out for wandering sheep, hidden junctions, or ambling senior citizens? Who knows? It is not especially effective.

Now your argument is that God's warning, "eat this and you will die" doesn't need to explain how you will die, because that's not important. The important thing is eat it = die. On the face of it that is a sound argument. But let's look more closely.

Are today's road signs adequate warnings? Are they effective? I claimed above that they are. They've saved lives, I said. But that is not strictly true. The warning signs combined with an extensive educational system (formal and informal) that is tested enable it to be effective. You have to know about warning signs and what they mean and why they are important before you are allowed to be exposed to the dangers they warn about. And you have to prove that by passing a test.
Consequently, young, inexperienced, innocent people are not allowed to get into a situation where they would need to understand those signs.

You see where I am going. eat it = die offered as a warning to an innocent couple who didn't even really understand death seems like an inadequate warning to me.

Ophiolite said:

I see a way of addressing this, with some repetition of what you may feel you previously refuted, but at least avoiding the references that I think would be counter to forum rules.

You note that God did warn Adam. I've been reflecting on what constitutes a warning and, more to the point, what constitutes an effective and appropriate warning.

Today on the roads of most Western nations there are a variety of warning signs that tell motorists of dangers they may encounter on the road ahead. These might be falling rocks, shallow fords across small rivers, steep descents, etc. These are useful since the traveller can mentally prepare for how they will deal with these potentially adverse conditions. I imagine that the presence of these warning signs has helped prevent many accidents, death and serious injury.

Signs of this type were introduced in the UK, IIRC, in the 1950s. Prior to that one was alerted to dangers by a sign with an exclamation mark. Well, I suppose it is of some value, but are you looking out for wandering sheep, hidden junctions, or ambling senior citizens? Who knows? It is not especially effective.

Now your argument is that God's warning, "eat this and you will die" doesn't need to explain how you will die, because that's not important. The important thing is eat it = die. On the face of it that is a sound argument. But let's look more closely.

Are today's road signs adequate warnings? Are they effective? I claimed above that they are. They've saved lives, I said. But that is not strictly true. The warning signs combined with an extensive educational system (formal and informal) that is tested enable it to be effective. You have to know about warning signs and what they mean and why they are important before you are allowed to be exposed to the dangers they warn about. And you have to prove that by passing a test.
Consequently, young, inexperienced, innocent people are not allowed to get into a situation where they would need to understand those signs.

You see where I am going. eat it = die offered as a warning to an innocent couple who didn't even really understand death seems like an inadequate warning to me.

Click to expand...

Especially to a God who is all-knowing and all-seeing. When, according to most believers, God already knew exactly what was about to transpire he did nothing to prevent it. That's not a warning. It's Willy Wonka mumbling, "oh no. please don't." as the kid falls into the chocolate river.

Phred said:

It's Willy Wonka mumbling, "oh no. please don't." as the kid falls into the chocolate river.

Click to expand...

At least falling into a chocolate river likely has some attractions to a child. Not so imminent death.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

I don't think I moved the goal posts at all. I think it's critics trying to decide who they do and do not want to address amongst creationists.

Here was the original statement by frumious:
" if you were a parent looking to give your child the freedom to make their own choices, I suggest that you would select a safe environment and not deliberately provide lethal options for those choices."

Click to expand...

You came late to the conversation. The original claim was made in post #79 "Sin brought death into the world"

You have moved the goalposts.

Ophiolite said:

I see a way of addressing this, with some repetition of what you may feel you previously refuted, but at least avoiding the references that I think would be counter to forum rules.

You note that God did warn Adam. I've been reflecting on what constitutes a warning and, more to the point, what constitutes an effective and appropriate warning.

Today on the roads of most Western nations there are a variety of warning signs that tell motorists of dangers they may encounter on the road ahead. These might be falling rocks, shallow fords across small rivers, steep descents, etc. These are useful since the traveller can mentally prepare for how they will deal with these potentially adverse conditions. I imagine that the presence of these warning signs has helped prevent many accidents, death and serious injury.

Signs of this type were introduced in the UK, IIRC, in the 1950s. Prior to that one was alerted to dangers by a sign with an exclamation mark. Well, I suppose it is of some value, but are you looking out for wandering sheep, hidden junctions, or ambling senior citizens? Who knows? It is not especially effective.

Now your argument is that God's warning, "eat this and you will die" doesn't need to explain how you will die, because that's not important. The important thing is eat it = die. On the face of it that is a sound argument. But let's look more closely.

Are today's road signs adequate warnings? Are they effective? I claimed above that they are. They've saved lives, I said. But that is not strictly true. The warning signs combined with an extensive educational system (formal and informal) that is tested enable it to be effective. You have to know about warning signs and what they mean and why they are important before you are allowed to be exposed to the dangers they warn about. And you have to prove that by passing a test.
Consequently, young, inexperienced, innocent people are not allowed to get into a situation where they would need to understand those signs.

You see where I am going. eat it = die offered as a warning to an innocent couple who didn't even really understand death seems like an inadequate warning to me.

Click to expand...

I think this makes sense, though I think it continues to fall into the ball court of arguments against YECs in that, in order for the logic to follow, Adam literally had to have been created, perhaps out of clay, in a world in which death was unknown to him.

These continual arguments against YECs don't really address the the meaning and value of scripture as it is presented to Christians.

I've said it above and I'll note it again, if the goal is to break down 6 day creation literalism, all we have to do is remind ourselves that men aren't made of clay and women aren't made of rib bones.

When we talk about Genesis in light of teachings in scripture, it's a completely different game. As noted above, scripture wasn't written in a vacuum. When Paul speaks of Genesis and God's wrath upon mankind, it's never a question of if God gave enough of a warning or if God should have hidden the tree from Adam, or if God should have erected a magical fence around the tree etc. These are all though exercised that hinge upon a literalist perspective of scripture. But all Christians, or all creationists are not YECs. So these ideas and critiques just don't apply to a large body of Christian teachings on the book of Genesis.

Bungle_Bear said:

You came late to the conversation. The original claim was made in post #79 "Sin brought death into the world"

You have moved the goalposts.

Click to expand...

My goal posts have always been where they have been. If your critique only applies to YECs then it is what it is.

I think you guys are just picking and choosing which creationist ideas to critique. Would rather address YEC ideas and not other creationist ideas.

My ideas are on the table for critique.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

If you can describe the core of Christianity as you see it in terms of a claim or claims about events in the world, maybe it can be examined here.

Click to expand...

Yea sure.

So the topic is titled "How does creation explain the existence of parasites?".

It's not necessarily a question geared toward YECs, though it could be.

When we look at parasites, there are a couple topics that come to my mind. I don't think parasites are necessarily willfully choosing to conduct an evil practice. They aren't really defying or transgressing the laws of God or ignoring God, and thus it wouldn't necessarily be sin, as described in Romans 4:15 or 1 John 3:4, Matthew 7:22-23.

When we talk about Genesis, and Adam eating of the apple, it's merely a reflection of this same idea. And indeed this is what authors of scripture reference. See Romans 5:14 for example. Or Romans 1:32.

Basically it's said that when people trespass God's will, they basically bring it upon themselves. Much like a murderer might end up dead or imprisoned themselves, God gives freedom to people to make moral and immoral choices. And it follows that people who sin, will be subjected to God's wrath.

And that's basically what this comes down to. Beyond the apple and beyond a man made of clay. It's taught, both in modern times, and by Jesus and by the apostles, essentially that, we ought to follow the word and law, or face God's wrath. And this is what permeates all of the new testament. And if we read Romans 26-32, I'm not sure that I would disagree with the idea that these actions, at the very least, have a good probability of resulting in harm to the individual committing the act. Homosexuality could be debatable, but the list of sins that follows, I would say, makes for a practical and applicable teaching (Romans 29-31) by the apostle Paul.

When we examine teachings of the church, we aren't sitting around debating over if God should have made an invisible fence around a tree. Rather when it comes to Adam sinning and eating of the apple, it's a story of transgression that I would say, is applicable and valuable for all time. Paul seemed to think so too with his routine references to genesis. Paul wasn't sitting around making literalist arguments to justify that the planet was 6,000 years old. He was arguing for moral practicality. And in a modern world where countless Christians aren't YECs, this is really what it comes down to.

There is another question though. A question of parasites, that aren't sentient or actively thoughtful sinners.

And I'll get to that shortly.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

I think this makes sense, though I think it continues to fall into the ball court of arguments against YECs in that, in order for the logic to follow, Adam literally had to have been created, perhaps out of clay, in a world in which death was unknown to him.

These continual arguments against YECs don't really address the the meaning and value of scripture as it is presented to Christians.

Click to expand...

OK. But I wasn't addressing YEC arguments, I was addressing points you made in your posts. Perhaps I misunderstood those posts, but you seemed to take much the same stance in a series of them, so I find that explanation challenging. Is it possible that your exposition is not as clear as you intended?

Ophiolite said:

OK. But I wasn't addressing YEC arguments, I was addressing points you made in your posts. Perhaps I misunderstood those posts, but you seemed to take much the same stance in a series of them, so I find that explanation challenging. Is it possible that your exposition is not as clear as you intended?

Click to expand...

I've added to my post above to expound on the topic.

It sounds to me like you're addressing YEC ideas. Making a case that God should have perhaps added some kind of instruction manual for Adam. The argument seems to hinge on the idea that perhaps there was a man literally made out of clay that lived 6,000 years ago that walked over and picked an apple off a tree and then lost his...invincibility? As a product of eating the apple.

I'm saying that, to really tackle the topic of suffering and the topic of sin and the truths (or falsehoods) of Genesis (or the question of how creation addresses parasites), I think we have to move beyond the world of biblical literalists and look more toward the world of christian creationism at large (because many of us aren't YECs or literalists), which has more to do with topics that don't hinge upon biblical literalism and a 6,000 year old mankind originating from soil and rib bones, eating of an apple in a deathless garden.

And I think a good place to start on the topic, as noted above, is with writings of the apostles and how they viewed value and meaning of the topic of sin, and how they referred to Genesis in their teachings and for what purposes they spoke of these topics.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

And I think a good place to start on the topic, as noted above, is with writings of the apostles and how they viewed value and meaning of the topic of sin, and how they referred to Genesis in their teachings and for what purposes they spoke of these topics.

Click to expand...

I am not certain that this topic interests me sufficiently to engage with you, but I'll follow subsequent posts and chime in something catches my eye.

The thing is because . . .

Isaiah 41:10 said:

It sounds to me like you're addressing YEC ideas. Making a case that God should have perhaps added some kind of instruction manual for Adam. The argument seems to hinge on the idea that perhaps there was a man literally made out of clay that lived 6,000 years ago that walked over and picked an apple off a tree and then lost his...invincibility? As a product of eating the apple

Click to expand...

. . . in an earlier post you specifically stated that God warned Adam and told him he would die if he ate of the tree. At that point , you didn't appear to indicate you were treating this as myth, or metaphor, or allegory. You made a simple direct statement, to which I responded. Now you tell me it was not intended in that way. So either you wrote badly, I read badly, or some combination thereof.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

Yea sure.

So the topic is titled "How does creation explain the existence of parasites?".

It's not necessarily a question geared toward YECs, though it could be.

Click to expand...

By 'here', I meant in the Physical & Life Sciences forums. I was suggesting that you create a thread on a specific topic that you want to discuss...

Ophiolite said:

I am not certain that this topic interests me sufficiently to engage with you, but I'll follow subsequent posts and chime in something catches my eye.

The thing is because . . .
. . . in an earlier post you specifically stated that God warned Adam and told him he would die if he ate of the tree. At that point , you didn't appear to indicate you were treating this as myth, or metaphor, or allegory. You made a simple direct statement, to which I responded. Now you tell me it was not intended in that way. So either you wrote badly, I read badly, or some combination thereof.

Click to expand...

I read it the same way so I don't think it's just you.

Ophiolite said:

I am not certain that this topic interests me sufficiently to engage with you, but I'll follow subsequent posts and chime in something catches my eye.

The thing is because . . .
. . . in an earlier post you specifically stated that God warned Adam and told him he would die if he ate of the tree. At that point , you didn't appear to indicate you were treating this as myth, or metaphor, or allegory. You made a simple direct statement, to which I responded. Now you tell me it was not intended in that way. So either you wrote badly, I read badly, or some combination thereof.

Click to expand...

Here is where I quoted scripture in response to you:
Creationists: How does creation explain the existence of parasites?

I was simply referring to the language used in scripture when it states that God told Adam that if he ate of the tree, he would die. This truth of God's wrath being a product of man's transgression can be taken away by both literalists or non literalists, the story stays the same either way.

If I gave the impression that I was a biblical YEC literalist, I apologize. I am not.

If you aren't interested in engaging with creationists, aside from biblical literalists, on the topic of suffering or sin in the world, that is fine.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

Here is where I quoted scripture in response to you:
Creationists: How does creation explain the existence of parasites?

I was simply referring to the language used in scripture when it states that God told Adam that if he ate of the tree, he would die. This truth of God's wrath being a product of man's transgression can be taken away by both literalists or non literalists, the story stays the same either way.

If I gave the impression that I was a biblical YEC literalist, I apologize. I am not.

If you aren't interested in engaging with creationists, aside from biblical literalists, on the topic of suffering or sin in the world, that is fine.

Click to expand...

That's going to be hard, fourm rules are pretty strict about what we are allowed to talk about, even more so if you don't fit into Christianity. I'm not sure a topic about scripture not from a YEC perspective would survive. It's not like were allowed to debate scripture in detail.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

If I gave the impression that I was a biblical YEC literalist, I apologize. I am not.

Click to expand...

No need to apologise, but thank you for the gesture.

I never took you to be a YEC literalist, since there was zero evidence for it in any of the many posts of yours I had read, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. So, I was not responding on the basis of what I thought you were, philosophically, but upon what you said with no apparent qualification. However, all is now clear, so we can move on.