Creationists: How does creation explain the existence of parasites?

[Job 33:6]

Can my posts 72 and 73 get some love around here?

Creationists: How does creation explain the existence of parasites?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can my posts 72 and 73 get some love around here?

Done and done.

 

[eleos1954]

You accept, then, that God brought death, not sin. Thanks for changing your mind so readily.

No ... God gave choice ..... to sin or not to sin .... all choose either life or death. God told Adam & Eve IF they ate of the tree they would surely die .... THEY made the choice .... not God.

And ... please refrain from putting words into my mouth ... in an attempt to justify YOUR thinking ... thank you

 

[Ophiolite]

No ... God gave choice ..... to sin or not to sin .... all choose either life or death. God told Adam & Eve IF they ate of the tree they would surely die .... THEY made the choice .... not God.

And ... please refrain from putting words into my mouth ... in an attempt to justify YOUR thinking ... thank you

I read back through the exchange and my perception is that @Bungle_Bear is not putting words in your mouth, but is asserting the consequences of the words you have put in your post.
I think his argument is "God knowingly and deliberately put into the Garden a tree which would lead Adam & Eve to die if they ate from it. That is a paraphrase of your statment. It follows, therefore, that God placed Death in the Garden." That seems, to me, a logical interpretation of your words.

Perhaps you can offer a rebuttal of the logic, but - if I am correct - you would owe Bungle_Bear an apology for claiming he put words in your mouth.

 

[Phred]

No ... God gave choice ..... to sin or not to sin .... all choose either life or death. God told Adam & Eve IF they ate of the tree they would surely die .... THEY made the choice .... not God.

And ... please refrain from putting words into my mouth ... in an attempt to justify YOUR thinking ... thank you

It would also seem that, if asked if God is all-knowing you would answer emphatically "YES!"
Does God know everything that will happen at every moment in time both past, present and future and you would answer, "YES!"
Can God do anything God wishes to do? Is there anything that God cannot do? And you would answer, "YES!"
Am I correct in placing these words into your mouth? Is anything here incorrect?

God knew exactly what would happen when he placed that tree in the garden. Warning them was nice and all but he already knew exactly what was about to take place. So letting two beings who had no knowledge of right and wrong loose with a snake was not only hazardous but seeing as he knew the outcome... it was evil. Especially when he simply could have put the tree elsewhere or put the snake elsewhere. He could have walled off the tree. Any of a million other solutions that would have kept Adam and Eve in the garden.

The only possible answer is that God didn't want them in the garden anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only possible answer is that God didn't want them in the garden anymore.

And what if someone else would have eaten it later on? did you think of that?

 

[eleos1954]

And what if someone else would have eaten it later on? did you think of that?

If Adam and Eve would not have eaten .... there would not be any sin in the world. God originally gave complete dominion over the earth to Adam ... when he disobeyed God and ate he forfeited that dominion to satan and so now we got what we got until Jesus returns.

What if? If's don't matter .... what IS does.

 

[Phred]

And what if someone else would have eaten it later on? did you think of that?

Who? There were only TWO flipping people in the entire world. And God is all-knowing and omnipotent. You're saying he can't stop someone from walking up to his magic tree??? Someone who doesn't exist???

 

[Phred]

If Adam and Eve would not have eaten .... there would not be any sin in the world. God originally gave complete dominion over the earth to Adam ... when he disobeyed God and ate he forfeited that dominion to satan and so now we got what we got until Jesus returns.

What if? If's don't matter .... what IS does.

And if circles were squares then triangles would be blue.

 

[pitabread]

Can my posts 72 and 73 get some love around here?

Creationists: How does creation explain the existence of parasites?

I'd thought about responding to post #72, but it seemed like it was already addressed through earlier responses in the thread which boil down to, God works in mysterious ways.

And that really is the limit of creationism when it comes to trying to explain anything about creation. Things are the way they are because that's how things were made.

How and why things were made the way they were made is something creationism cannot explain.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if? If's don't matter .... what IS does.

Ya ... but when someone makes a point (however ludicrous), then addresses his own point with, "the only possible answer is ...", it shows an inability (or unwillingness) to think things through.

 

[pitabread]

If Adam and Eve would not have eaten .... there would not be any sin in the world. God originally gave complete dominion over the earth to Adam ... when he disobeyed God and ate he forfeited that dominion to satan and so now we got what we got until Jesus returns.

Which doesn't make any real sense from a literalist perspective. And it doesn't really solve the problem of things like explaining how parasitism came to be.

 

[AV1611VET]

How and why things were made the way they were made is something creationism cannot explain.

Science ... in sticking its nose into creationism, deserves what it gets: flummoxed.

It's not good enough that God gives us what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

No, that's not good enough.

Yet science will continually drag creationism out of history and into their laboratories, then complain they can't find anything or get any answers.

Science needs to know when it's outclassed; and when to quit.

But it won't -- so I say science can take a hike.

 

[durangodawood]

Sometimes I also think about, if I were God what would I create? Would I make something that exists in a very specific way, perhaps mankind could be perfect, all identical genes, billions of twins. Though without variation these people might risk death in am ever changing world. The only way to remove pain and suffering would be to create us all as Gods ourselves. But I'm not sure that there really could be multiple God's, all infinitely existing at the same time.

Sometimes I consider that the world has to be this way. A world without pain would be a world without freedom, without individual minds. If we consider a scenario where a child is starving and someone makes a choice to feed that child, it would be a beautiful thing. But could a world exist where no one ever was hungry? Maybe this world would have infinite food, on a planet of an infinite size?

For a world to exist without pain, the world couldn't exist at all. So what would creation look like, if there were no suffering?

Often times our suffering comes from failed expectations. I expect a slice of pizza to have a certain taste, I bite it and it's not that good. I then suffer.

In a world without suffering, do I no longer taste? Does pizza taste infinitely good? How could I bake an infinitely good pizza? I wouldn't bake it at all, there would be no cooking at all. Then I would simply suffer because I could no longer enjoy cooking or baking because the pizza was already perfect right out of the freezer.

To truly remove suffering, I'm not sure that creation could even exist. And therefore perhaps suffering must exist by default.

Something has to give tho.
Either:
1. Good is not intelligible to humans
2. God is not perfectly good.

I'm fine with the idea that God knowingly made a world of brutal suffering. But if that is good, then the meaning of "good" is extremely strained and perhaps even breaks. Perhaps there's divine good and then a different human good. Same problem tho. We use human words with human meanings.

Also, your normal human incapacity to imagine a world without suffering does not indicate to me that such a world must be impossible. It could simply be the failure of imagination that we should expect given that we're totally embedded in the world we've got.

 

[pitabread]

Science ... in sticking its nose into creationism, deserves what it gets: flummoxed.

It's not good enough that God gives us what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

No, that's not good enough.

Yet science will continually drag creationism out of history and into their laboratories, then complain they can't find anything or get any answers.

Science needs to know when it's outclassed; and when to quit.

But it won't -- so I say science can take a hike.

The issue isn't science being "flummoxed". This issue is creationists being flummoxed when it comes to providing explanations already explained via scientific inquiry.

This isn't a case of science needing to take a hike. It's the issue of creationists needing to understand that their theological beliefs don't actually have the explanatory power they pretend they have.

Threads like this simply reinforce this.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'd thought about responding to post #72, but it seemed like it was already addressed through earlier responses in the thread which boil down to, God works in mysterious ways.

And that really is the limit of creationism when it comes to trying to explain anything about creation. Things are the way they are because that's how things were made.

How and why things were made the way they were made is something creationism cannot explain.

I think this boils down further to the problem of evil, which is something that boils even further down to the question of why reality exists as it does. I don't think it's an issue for creationism anymore than it is an issue for anyone else who might not know why we exist (specifically in a way in which evil exists).

For creationism, we might say God works in mysterious ways. For say, atheism, we might say, well...why a parasite exists to make a slugs eyes swell up, sure we could say that evolution produced this, but why? Why would evolution even exist to begin with?

Some things just are as they are and I don't think anyone, creationist or non-creationist can really resolve these deep questions.

We could reanalyze the question in a way in which creationism excludes creation via evolution, or excludes theistic evolution.

But what fun is this? May as well be beating on a pinata that clearly stands no chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ouch, don't eat beef already, but I am a ways from enjoying a vegetarian diet. Working on it. Carbon offsets to make Impossible cost effective? LOL

I have had the impossible burger once at Burger King. It was not very different from a regular Whopper and the price, at least then, was the same. I do not think that carbon offsets will be necessary. It is already competitive and it as production improves the price could easily be cheaper than beef.

This article was a shocker to me. Of land based mammals, I made the mistake of using the term "vertebrates", 96% of the biomass is either humans or our livestock:

Humans and Big Ag Livestock Now Account for 96 Percent of Mammal Biomass

That is rather amazing that only 4% of mammals by mass are either not humans or our animals.

 

[AV1611VET]

This isn't a case of science needing to take a hike.

I'm going to disagree, because of your next sentence.

It's the issue of creationists needing to understand that their theological beliefs don't actually have the explanatory power they pretend they have.

I agree with you.

Creationism isn't science, it is history.

But why, pray tell, are they put in a situation where they have to explain anything?

If science would learn how inefficient and powerless it is to take on anything in the Bible, creationists wouldn't be trying so hard to shoot themselves in the foot.

Creationists need to back off and learn to tell science to take a hike, and quit trying to appease them with things they know nothing about.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have had the impossible burger once at Burger King.

Give me a big steak and burn that sucker to a crisp!

 

[pitabread]

But why, pray tell, are they put in a situation where they have to explain anything?

Because creationists continually intrude on the domain of science.

If science would learn how inefficient and powerless it is to take on anything in the Bible

What is this, "my dad can beat up your dad" kind of arguments? Is this where we are at now?

It really comes down to what is the best tool for providing answers or explanations for different domains of inquiry. And science is still the best tool we have for investigating and understanding how our universe works.

Creationists need to back off

This part I do agree with.

and learn to tell science to take a hike

This, not so much. This doesn't do anyone any good, honestly. At best all you're advocating is scientific illiteracy which comes with its own bundle of consequences (as the pandemic has nicely illustrated via COVID-denial, anti-vaxx, etc).

What creationists really need to do is reframe their beliefs so they don't feel the need to tell science to "take a hike" in the first place. Science isn't going anywhere.