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

renniks said:

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

Click to expand...

I never said it was disorderly. Quite the opposite is the case. It shows that order can rise up out of chaos.

dlamberth said:

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.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Love can be explained rationally. Most simply do not want to.

renniks said:

We are designed for a purpose.

Click to expand...

Rather than design for a purpose, we're here because of the Creativity of Life. If there's a pull towards a purpose, I think it has everything to do with the evolution of consciousness.

Subduction Zone said:

I disagree. Love can be explained rationally. Most simply do not want to.

Click to expand...

I'd Love to see you give it a try, you would be the first.

I've never seen the "experience" of Love explained in any rational manor. The folks who come closest to bringing out the "experience" of Love are the Poets and Song writers.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

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

Click to expand...

My thinking process at the moment I was typing was rational. That's the thinking process. Conscious awareness is being aware. That's a different process. There's no thinking involved in being aware. Just awareness. Have you practiced meditation? A newly born baby is aware, yet they have zero rational thought of any kind.

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'?

Click to expand...

Your making it more complicated than it is. The American Indians experiencing things around them as verbs rather than nouns is a non-polarity way of consciously experiencing and living Life. It did give them a sense of Sacredness and connection with the life around them, which is why they call animals brothers and sisters.

Subduction Zone said:

Love can be explained rationally.

Click to expand...

True, but it is best experienced irrationally.

renniks said:

There's nothing simple about God.

Click to expand...

And yet I've heard many believers say that something as complex as the universe must have had a creator.

Strikes me as odd that the universe must have a creator because it's complex, yet God (who you say is also complex) does not have a creator. (Unless you think that God DOES have a creator, but I doubt it.)

renniks said:

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.

Click to expand...

No one has said that science knows everything. Of course there are plenty of things that science doesn't know.

And no, it doesn't know why everything exists, although I think the question of WHY is assuming that there is some reasoning intent behind it, and that is far from certain.

And yes, there are plenty of things that science will never be able to answer, but that's okay. Science is not a "one tool for any job that you could ever want" thing. Science was made to find out how the universe works, it's a tool to learn about objective reality. And it does that very well.

To criticise science because it can't explain everything is like criticising a hammer because it can't polish your silverware.

renniks said:

There's nothing simple about God.

Click to expand...

Oh...God is simple. It's our religious beliefs and dogma and that make God complicated.

Kylie said:

To criticise science because it can't explain everything is like criticising a hammer because it can't polish your silverware.

Click to expand...

Drat, I knew I was doing something wrong. I mean it does make it shiny in parts, but the shape changes quite a bit.

Ophiolite said:

Drat, I knew I was doing something wrong. I mean it does make it shiny in parts, but the shape changes quite a bit.

Click to expand...

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

dlamberth said:

My thinking process at the moment I was typing was rational. That's the thinking process. Conscious awareness is being aware. That's a different process. There's no thinking involved in being aware. Just awareness. Have you practised meditation? A newly born baby is aware, yet they have zero rational thought of any kind.

Click to expand...

OK; in consciousness studies, psychology, and neuroscience, consciousness unqualified is generally taken to comprise a number of characteristics with basic conscious awareness as the core feature. So there's self-awareness, perception, knowledge, experience, deliberative thought, intentionality (representation), imagination, volition, and so-on. Simple awareness is the minimal conscious state, something probably shared by all vertebrates and some other creatures, possibly including some insects.

It's debatable how conscious neonates are; at 5 months they definitely show some neurological signs of consciousness, albeit with over a second delay in response to stimuli, but earlier than that it's not clear; their brains are significantly underdeveloped, very slow due to lack of myelination, and rapidly changing, which suggests that it's unlikely to resemble what we think of as consciousness.

Your making it more complicated than it is. The American Indians experiencing things around them as verbs rather than nouns is a non-polarity way of consciously experiencing and living Life. It did give them a sense of Sacredness and connection with the life around them, which is why they call animals brothers and sisters.

Click to expand...

I was just asking whether it involved what we would term 'supernatural', or not. Away from organised religions and the modern West and its influences, a sense of sacredness and connection with life (and, often, the land itself) is pretty much the default worldview; it's apparent in Africa, India, the Far East (China, Japan, and others), and the Australian aboriginals. In the West, Paganism is based upon the sacredness of nature.

pitabread said:

For clarity, when I say I don't think that everything is pointless doesn't imply we were designed for a purpose. I don't view those as dependent ideas.



I'm not sure what this means. Exploring what?

Click to expand...

Creation. Discovery. Because God created an amazing world for us to explore and learn about.

dlamberth said:

Rather than design for a purpose, we're here because of the Creativity of Life. If there's a pull towards a purpose, I think it has everything to do with the evolution of consciousness.

Click to expand...

Life could not create anything unless it was created itself.

Kylie said:

To criticise science because it can't explain everything is like criticising a hammer because it can't polish your silverware.

Click to expand...

It's not criticism. Just a fact.

dlamberth said:

Oh...God is simple. It's our religious beliefs and dogma and that make God complicated.

Click to expand...

A being who created everything by speaking it into being can hardly be seen as simple. We can barely comprehend his existence.

renniks said:

It's not criticism. Just a fact.

Click to expand...

A fact that you are presenting, apparently, as a way to claim that we should accept a supernatural explanation for things when there is already a perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanation.

pitabread said:

Do you think that a person could find that interesting (e.g. learning about the universe) without a belief in a divine creator?

Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself. I see the big picture. Doing the thing in front of me can't be enjoyable unless I know where it fits into that picture. So, for me, no, I could not enjoy learning about a pointless existence where I work so I can eat so I can work so I can eat again until I die. The end. That's not life, it is mere survival.