At times like this...

[Strathos]

How do you figure those passages are a warning about corona virus?

They're not, specifically. Just a general warning that the world isn't a nice place, and bad things can and will happen, often due to our own mistakes.

And what if it enters a host it is not evolved to deal with? Is it possible that it could kill that host? I mean, you do realise that there'd still be quite a population of the virus in the original host, right? And perhaps the virus only cares about reproducing anyway. If it enters a host, reproduces like crazy and is able to infect lots more people, then it doesn't matter after that if it kills the host or not, right?

They enter different hosts all the time. That's how we got this pandemic. It's ultimately man's fault for abusing and encroaching on nature. If we weren't clear-cutting forests and destroying animal habitats, forcing them to come into closer contact with us, then things like this would be much less likely to happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're not, specifically. Just a general warning that the world isn't a nice place, and bad things can and will happen, often due to our own mistakes.



They enter different hosts all the time. That's how we got this pandemic. It's ultimately man's fault for abusing and encroaching on nature. If we weren't clear-cutting forests and destroying animal habitats, forcing them to come into closer contact with us, then things like this would be much less likely to happen.

I don't think that this virus had anything to do with "encroaching on nature", though it might be a good argument that we are overpopulated.

 

[Kylie]

They're not, specifically. Just a general warning that the world isn't a nice place, and bad things can and will happen, often due to our own mistakes.

So you're presenting a vague and generalized prophecy that could refer to lots of things as evidence for... what, exactly?

They enter different hosts all the time. That's how we got this pandemic. It's ultimately man's fault for abusing and encroaching on nature. If we weren't clear-cutting forests and destroying animal habitats, forcing them to come into closer contact with us, then things like this would be much less likely to happen.

Doesn't change the fact that we are not their native hosts, so there's no reason to expect them to try to keep us alive. In any case, why would you expect any pathogen to be keen on keeping us alive when all they are programed to do is reproduce?

 

[Ophiolite]

Doesn't change the fact that we are not their native hosts, so there's no reason to expect them to try to keep us alive. In any case, why would you expect any pathogen to be keen on keeping us alive when all they are programed to do is reproduce?

Natural selection. A pathogen that kills its host, especially if it does so quickly, is less likely to be able reproduce beyond that host. Variants that prove less damaging have an increased chance of reproductive success, because they are more likely to be able to transfer to other hosts. The common cold is so successful, in large part, because it rarely kills its host.

 

[Strathos]

So you're presenting a vague and generalized prophecy that could refer to lots of things as evidence for... what, exactly?

Evidence that God never said that everything He created was friendly and harmless like you suppose it should be.

Doesn't change the fact that we are not their native hosts, so there's no reason to expect them to try to keep us alive. In any case, why would you expect any pathogen to be keen on keeping us alive when all they are programed to do is reproduce?

Point is, we ended up exposing ourselves to it.

 

[Kylie]

Natural selection. A pathogen that kills its host, especially if it does so quickly, is less likely to be able reproduce beyond that host. Variants that prove less damaging have an increased chance of reproductive success, because they are more likely to be able to transfer to other hosts. The common cold is so successful, in large part, because it rarely kills its host.

Doesn't matter too much if the pathogen is evolved to live in a different host!

 

[Kylie]

Evidence that God never said that everything He created was friendly and harmless like you suppose it should be.

So all that "And God saw that it was good" stuff meant what...?

Point is, we ended up exposing ourselves to it.

I'm curious as to why you think a vague prediction is the best way to show that God said it was coming. I mean anyone could have predicted that. "I predict that bad things will happen at some point in the future." Doesn't exactly take a genius.

 

[Strathos]

So all that "And God saw that it was good" stuff meant what...?

"Good" doesn't mean perfect. There is always the issue of sin.

I'm curious as to why you think a vague prediction is the best way to show that God said it was coming. I mean anyone could have predicted that. "I predict that bad things will happen at some point in the future." Doesn't exactly take a genius.

All I'm saying is that the idea that God would create everything to be harmless and helpful would never work out due to the sinful nature of mankind. That was the whole point of the Garden of Eden story. It's allegorical.

 

[Kylie]

"Good" doesn't mean perfect. There is always the issue of sin.

So God can create something that has a rather large security vulnerability, and yet he still thinks, in his infinite wisdom, that it's GOOD anyway?

All I'm saying is that the idea that God would create everything to be harmless and helpful would never work out due to the sinful nature of mankind. That was the whole point of the Garden of Eden story. It's allegorical.

So you are saying that an omnipotent God who can create the universe can't actually accomplish that? Not exactly "all-powerful" there, is he?

 

[Ophiolite]

Doesn't matter too much if the pathogen is evolved to live in a different host!

Irrelevant to the question I was responding to, repeated here (with emphasis) for your convenience.
In any case, why would you expect any pathogen to be keen on keeping us alive when all they are programed to do is reproduce?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant to the question I was responding to, repeated here (with emphasis) for your convenience.
In any case, why would you expect any pathogen to be keen on keeping us alive when all they are programed to do is reproduce?

People tend to anthropomorphize animals and even inanimate objects at times. I understood her meaning. From an evolutionary perspective a virus that does not kill the host will do better than one that does. Take herpes as an example. Very rarely does it become a serious disease. Most of the time it just lurks in the background. As result most of us get it and many do not even know that we have herpes. Between type I and II the rates are something on the order of 80% worldwide for an infection rate.

It is not so much of an example of wanting, it is more of an example of evolutionary success.

 

[Ophiolite]

People tend to anthropomorphize animals and even inanimate objects at times. I understood her meaning. From an evolutionary perspective a virus that does not kill the host will do better than one that does. Take herpes as an example. Very rarely does it become a serious disease. Most of the time it just lurks in the background. As result most of us get it and many do not even know that we have herpes. Between type I and II the rates are something on the order of 80% worldwide for an infection rate.

It is not so much of an example of wanting, it is more of an example of evolutionary success.

I think you have misread my post, or Kylie's, or both. Kylie, apparently, can't see "why a pathogen would be keen on keeping us alive". You and I share the view as to why it would. (The anthropomorphising of the process of natural selection is not an issue for me. )

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you have misread my post, or Kylie's, or both. Kylie, apparently, can't see "why a pathogen would be keen on keeping us alive". You and I share the view as to why it would. (The anthropomorphising of the process of natural selection is not an issue for me. )

I should have gone back further

 

[Strathos]

So God can create something that has a rather large security vulnerability, and yet he still thinks, in his infinite wisdom, that it's GOOD anyway?



So you are saying that an omnipotent God who can create the universe can't actually accomplish that? Not exactly "all-powerful" there, is he?

He could, but He didn't. Human life on earth is defined by our sinful nature.

 

[Kylie]

Irrelevant to the question I was responding to, repeated here (with emphasis) for your convenience.
In any case, why would you expect any pathogen to be keen on keeping us alive when all they are programed to do is reproduce?

While I agree with you, I think you are missing my larger point. I was pointing out that a pathogen that had evolved to infect Organism A would have evolved to a point where it was able to keep A alive long enough to reproduce and spread. What happened to A after that the pathogen wouldn't really care about, since it had already got what it needed from A.

But if the pathogen is suddenly introduced to Organism B, then it could react differently, since it was evolved to work well in A, not B. So, the pathogen might react with B in a way that leads to rapid death of B. This wouldn't really matter as far as the whole population of the pathogen is concerned, since most of the pathogen is infecting A, not B. So I would not expect the pathogen to be very good at keeping B alive if it had evolved to primarily infect A.

 

[Kylie]

He could, but He didn't. Human life on earth is defined by our sinful nature.

So God set us up to fail, did he?

 

[Strathos]

So God set us up to fail, did he?

No. He gave us a way to succeed despite our sin.

 

[Kylie]

No. He gave us a way to succeed despite our sin.

Which doesn't always work.

It seems to be a very poor design.

When there's a design flaw, you change it so the flaw is fixed. You don't add a bunch of systems that try to fudge a solution to the problem when it occurs.

 

[Strathos]

Which doesn't always work.

It seems to be a very poor design.

When there's a design flaw, you change it so the flaw is fixed. You don't add a bunch of systems that try to fudge a solution to the problem when it occurs.

It does work, but first you have to humble yourself.

 

[Gottservant]

Wouldn't you rather say "I'm glad that Creation is true, because that means COVID-19 has a function that can be immunized"?