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

Subduction Zone · Jul 26, 2021

renniks said:
Life could not create anything unless it was created itself.

A claim that has no evidence for it. There is evidence that supports that life arose naturally.

Kylie · Jul 26, 2021

renniks said:
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.

So perhaps your desire to see where things fit in motivates you to conclude a creator to provide those answers where you can't get them otherwise?

renniks · Jul 27, 2021

Kylie said:
So perhaps your desire to see where things fit in motivates you to conclude a creator to provide those answers where you can't get them otherwise?

There's never been a time when I didn't believe in a creator. It's obvious to anyone who really spends a lot of time in nature.

pitabread · Jul 27, 2021

renniks said:
It's obvious to anyone who really spends a lot of time in nature.

How do you figure?

renniks · Jul 27, 2021

pitabread said:
How do you figure?

Because: "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge."

pitabread · Jul 27, 2021

renniks said:
Because: "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge."

That doesn't really answer my question. Mere assertion isn't particularly compelling.

Hans Blaster · Jul 27, 2021

renniks said:
There's never been a time when I didn't believe in a creator. It's obvious to anyone who really spends a lot of time in nature.

While I have no doubt about your personal claims, the "obvious to anyone" claim about the "created" aspect of nature has been empty since Paul wrote it 2000 years ago. (I don't know your scriptures well, perhaps some OT author wrote something a few centuries earlier.)

Throughout history many people have not seen this "obviousness" when looking at nature. I've never seen it.

Phred · Jul 27, 2021

renniks said:
Which doesn't mean that is always the case.
You can't discount someone's experience just because you haven't had that experience.

Yeah. I can. Not that someone experienced something. But that someone immediately says, "goddidit." I notice throughout this thread whenever the answer is difficult to come by you immediately divert to "well, the soul" or "God." Things that can't be measured, observed or in any way questioned. And you can assign whatever qualities you want to them. They can be anything!

So... yeah. I discount that in a heartbeat.

This right here is why we still have people running around in fields looking for Bigfoot.

Phred · Jul 27, 2021

renniks said:
The same one all disciples of their own logic fall into. You think something can't be real if you can't explain it scientifically.
I could have a spiritual reaction to the sunset over the ocean and you would say it's just reflected light, because that's as deep as you allow yourself to experience life.

When you get a parasite that crawls up your urethra and the pain drives you to scream do you scream "Wow, this is wonderful! I'm having a spiritual reaction to this critter."

Or do you drag yourself to the ER and beg for some of that science?

renniks · Jul 27, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
While I have no doubt about your personal claims, the "obvious to anyone" claim about the "created" aspect of nature has been empty since Paul wrote it 2000 years ago. (I don't know your scriptures well, perhaps some OT author wrote something a few centuries earlier.)

Throughout history many people have not seen this "obviousness" when looking at nature. I've never seen it.

Though out history the vast majority of humanity has worshiped either nature god's or the God who created nature.

renniks · Jul 27, 2021

Phred said:
Yeah. I can. Not that someone experienced something. But that someone immediately says, "goddidit." I notice throughout this thread whenever the answer is difficult to come by you immediately divert to "well, the soul" or "God." Things that can't be measured, observed or in any way questioned. And you can assign whatever qualities you want to them. They can be anything!

So... yeah. I discount that in a heartbeat.

This right here is why we still have people running around in fields looking for Bigfoot.

No, mostly in the woods.
And the tiny fraction of people who believe in bigfoot is nothing compared to the vast majority of humanity believing in God or gods all through history.

Hans Blaster · Jul 27, 2021

renniks said:
Though out history the vast majority of humanity has worshiped either nature god's or the God who created nature.

"Accepted by most" and "obvious to all" are *not* the same thing. Even when I thought there was a god, I didn't think that nature was the evidence of it.

Phred · Jul 27, 2021

renniks said:
No, mostly in the woods.
And the tiny fraction of people who believe in bigfoot is nothing compared to the vast majority of humanity believing in God or gods all through history.

Oh My Goodness! You mean people believe in God? I never knew that! Why, I'll just trundle right out and start believing too. That's the best argument I've ever heard as to why I should as well.

Or not.

Kylie · Jul 27, 2021

renniks said:
There's never been a time when I didn't believe in a creator. It's obvious to anyone who really spends a lot of time in nature.

"It's obvious" is not a valid line of evidence.

People once said it was obvious that heavy objects fall faster than light objects.

Ophiolite · Jul 27, 2021

renniks said:
Though out history the vast majority of humanity has worshiped either nature god's or the God who created nature.

Throughout history the vast majority of people have not been very good at thinking. Indeed, often an efficient way of figuring out the "truth" of a situation is to find out what "the majority of people think", then go the opposite way.
If that sounds elitist, it is. The intellectual elite, that is the "thinkers", are the ones responsible for almost every advance humanity has made. The rest of us just get carried along in their wake.

renniks · Jul 28, 2021

Ophiolite said:
Throughout history the vast majority of people have not been very good at thinking. Indeed, often an efficient way of figuring out the "truth" of a situation is to find out what "the majority of people think", then go the opposite way.
If that sounds elitist, it is. The intellectual elite, that is the "thinkers", are the ones responsible for almost every advance humanity has made. The rest of us just get carried along in their wake.

The intellectual worker finds an easier way to do his job, but is often ignored. The thinker that just thinks and wants you to accept his ideas is not that useful.
And insulting the vast majority of people isn't helpful.

Phred · Jul 28, 2021

renniks said:
The intellectual worker finds an easier way to do his job, but is often ignored. The thinker that just thinks and wants you to accept his ideas is not that useful.
And insulting the vast majority of people isn't helpful.

This drive to be anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge is frightening. Always looking to find a way to say "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." It's never the case.

Ophiolite · Jul 28, 2021

renniks said:
The intellectual worker finds an easier way to do his job, but is often ignored. The thinker that just thinks and wants you to accept his ideas is not that useful.
And insulting the vast majority of people isn't helpful.

What is insulting about recognising that the vast majority of progress is down to a handful of people? What is insulting about, possibly, being part of the majority? I'm part of that majority and I don't have a problem with it. Why do you?

renniks · Jul 28, 2021

Ophiolite said:
What is insulting about recognising that the vast majority of progress is down to a handful of people? What is insulting about, possibly, being part of the majority? I'm part of that majority and I don't have a problem with it. Why do you?

I don't buy it. Progress is relative, and often unseen.
It surely doesn't happen because of only a handful of people.

Phred · Jul 28, 2021

renniks said:
I don't buy it. Progress is relative, and often unseen.
It surely doesn't happen because of only a handful of people.

Progress ALWAYS happens because of only a handful of people. Rosa Parks refuses to change seats. Henry Ford comes up with a better way to manufacture cars. Thomas Edison. Charles Darwin. Albert Einstein. Orville and Wilbur Wright.

At various points in history usually one man did something that changed everything. There might have been others working on something like it. They did it first, or loudest or at the perfect time. They were the catalyst for change.

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

Regular Member

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Junior Mint

Junior Mint

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Junior Mint

Defeater of Illogic

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Junior Mint

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Junior Mint

Similar threads