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

[Subduction Zone]

Which terms are you referring to, I'll give it a try.

With mysticism though, terms and ideas are brought in as an "experience" of consciousness and not so much as definitions, which is what your demanding. Most of us are living in what the Buddhist call a monkey mind. I'm sure you've heard that term. The mystic tends to be more aware of and living in consciousness and not so much monkey mind. So rather than thinking their way through life, which is your trajectory, they are experiencing life more directly with out all of the mental clutter of concepts and such. Is that making sense to you?


Here's the claim. Human Beings, more than any other creature on this planet responds to Love.

As for evidence, look inward at our own being and see what we see in ourselves in that regard. How has those moments of Love or lack up touched us, for instance. Any rational person when experiencing Love can see that we Human Beings and society as a whole do much better in a world where Love is the norm. It's something we can see...at least a lot of us can anyway. I wish more would.

Put yourself into the plight of other human beings who have been abused and broken rather than living in a place of Love. Our streets here in Portland are full of examples of those poor souls. Any rational person when touched by empathy will see that these human beings need help. And that there's a lot we can do to help them but the lack of Love in society married with politics gets into the way of doing good by them.

Put yourself into the biosphere of the Earth and it's life forms that has been abused, raped and desecrated rather than Loved and experienced as Sacred and One. Feeling it from inside of us has a way of giving a deeper meaning and understanding. And from there any rational person can see that with a different life perspective it need not be this way, and that we may even be causing our own demise as a species.

Just more hand waving an woo woo.

This only validates my claim that many do not even understand the concept of evidence. I would suggest that you begin by learning what qualifies as scientific evidence and moving on from there. Scientists cam up with a clear definition of evidence because people will often try to dismiss evidence with the claim "that's not evidence". Since scientific evidence is clearly defined that is not so easy to do when one confronts examples of that. It is one of the reasons that various scientific ideas, such as gravity, the theory of evolution, and the Big Bang theory, are all almost universally accepted. The problem with mysticism is that it is only supported by hand waving and confirmation bias. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence for it at all.

 

[renniks]

Oh no. You don't get away with that one. Of that 93% they would kill each other of the differences of their beliefs. 3 billion say that the Muslim belief is correct while another 2 billion say that the Christian belief is correct. Another 1 billion say it's something else all together. So that 93% can't even agree on what that "god" is. And I know within the Christian group there are over 30,000 sects that argue constantly. And you think because they all use the word "god"

So? They all believe in a supreme Being. You're just nitpicking. They all see evidence for God existing.

 

[renniks]

Belief is unnecessary for evidence which either exists or does not exist

Thank God it does exist.

 

[coffee4u]

But how? If DNA could be copied perfectly prior to Fall, what is the specific molecular mechanisms that made that possible?

Was it a case of DNA replication itself being perfect? Was it the DNA repair mechanisms being perfect?

What exactly was at work that made DNA replication perfect?



How did viruses appear with Fall? How did radiation show up after the flood? (Note: this directly contradicts Young-Earth creationist findings like the RATE project)

What do you mean by chemicals "came later"? What chemicals?



We don't have any reason to assume this is true, since we have no basis for what a "perfect" Earth would even look like.

If anything the opposite is more likely since the early Earth would have been hostile to living organisms.



Unfortunately there are no creationists that post on this sub-forum that seem that "deep" into it.

Sounds like you should be directly contacting someone in the creation science field and talking to them. They may have some better ideas than me. Like I have said many times I don't really delve into this area very much at all. I'm a lay person with very little interest in science. What I am interested in and study is scripture.

You are asking about a world we don't have to test or observe. Both sides, secular science and creation science only have the world as it is now. We don't have a time machine, we can't go back and observe how things worked. God gave us hints and that is all. Scripture is truth not science. When God says that there was no death of creatures with a soul prior to the fall I know that to be true. How that occurred and worked would be science, but God isn't about explaining how physical things worked. He didn't explain germ theory to the ancients, just gave them rules on hygiene and quarantine.
The same way he tells us that the world went from perfection to corruption so i believe this to be true. I get that you want to know all the hows and whys that went into that but God isn't concerned about us knowing that and didn't share that information. There is no way the current world is going to show you that either. This is why its called faith.

 

[renniks]

No, most people simply do not understand the concept of evidence. They may think that they see evidence for God, but all of the evidence that I have ever seen falls apart when examined.

Because you are looking with the wrong eyes.
"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance."

 

[renniks]

Science certainly investigates love - check out Google scholar for "neurobiology of love". The other two are not objectively verifiable, although some work was done (long ago) on the potential physicality of the soul - trying to weigh it by the difference in weight between a person dying and dead.

Love as science describes it is just chemicals. It's much more than that.

 

[Kylie]

I gave examples above of divine intervention by logical means, thereby answering the "how". Ie God could manipulate subatomic particles in ways that we would perceive to be logical. Such as divinely intervening and re-directing a lightening bolt.

And I've covered that. It suggests that one day we could have that same understanding, and thus be equal to God.

 

[BeyondET]

The fall of man is often cited by creationists are the point which death entered the world, organisms began changing, etc.

My question is how did the fall specifically affect biological organisms causing them to change?

Was this change supernatural in nature? Were their deliberate, creative decisions being made in this process? Were new organisms being created? Or did it just involve modifying existing organisms?

Or did the fall simply trigger biological evolution in organisms? E.g. reproducing and mutating and diversifying from their originally created states?

Or was it some combination of factors?

Creationists: How exactly did the fall do things with respect to biology?

I'm not so sure it did, Adam and Eve was in the garden. The earth outside the garden organisms have been the same like it is today IMO. when man started the daughters of men taking of wives man was reduced to 120 yrs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So? They all believe in a supreme Being. You're just nitpicking. They all see evidence for God existing.

What "evidence"? Most people do not properly understand the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you are looking with the wrong eyes.
"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance."

I am looking with rational eyes. You just as much as admitted that you do not have any evidence.

 

[dlamberth]

Just more hand waving an woo woo.

This only validates my claim that many do not even understand the concept of evidence. I would suggest that you begin by learning what qualifies as scientific evidence and moving on from there. Scientists cam up with a clear definition of evidence because people will often try to dismiss evidence with the claim "that's not evidence". Since scientific evidence is clearly defined that is not so easy to do when one confronts examples of that. It is one of the reasons that various scientific ideas, such as gravity, the theory of evolution, and the Big Bang theory, are all almost universally accepted. The problem with mysticism is that it is only supported by hand waving and confirmation bias. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence for it at all.

No comment other than hand waving me away? I get it.

I do have a question for you though. What sort's of things would help to make us humans more Human? What does science say about that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No comment other than hand waving me away? I get it.

I do have a question for you though. What sort's of things would help to make us humans more Human? What does science say about that?

All you have is hand waving so it only takes hand waving to refute your claims. That is essentially Hitchen's Razor:

Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia

Once again, please post actual evidence.

And your question makes not sense as asked. What would make two more two?

 

[dlamberth]

All you have is hand waving so it only takes hand waving to refute your claims. That is essentially Hitchen's Razor:

Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia

Once again, please post actual evidence.

Ok. It's not working here as long as the intent is to define Mysticism as one would define science. As I brought up several times now they are different ways of knowing and understanding. Because of that difference they have different points in how they work. But a person has to be open to some kind of curiosity before they can move on, if that's not happening, I need to move on.

In my spiritual family I have friends who are scientist and who are able to cross that boundary between science and the spiritual. And I also know how science developed first through the various religious trajectories. Science was at one time practices as a very spiritual aspect in life.

]And your question makes not sense as asked. What would make two more two?

I've asked you a very basic question that a person in a Mystic 101 class would be asking. That such a basic question makes no sense to you tells me volumes and that we've taken this as far as it can go. Thanks for the discussion, much has been learned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. It's not working here as long as the intent is to define Mysticism as one would define science. As I brought up several times now they are different ways of knowing and understanding. Because of that difference they have different points in how they work. But a person has to be open to some kind of curiosity before they can move on, if that's not happening, I need to move on.

In my spiritual family I have friends who are scientist and who are able to cross that boundary between science and the spiritual. And I also know how science developed first through the various religious trajectories. Science was at one time practices as a very spiritual aspect in life.


I've asked you a very basic question that a person in a Mystic 101 class would be asking. That such a basic question makes no sense to you tells me volumes and that we've taken this as far as it can go. Thanks for the discussion, much has been learned.

What questions do you think that you asked?

You were the one that claimed to have reliable evidence. Instead you demonstrated that you did not even appear to understand the concept. A failure on your part is no excuse to take up your toys and leave.

 

[Job 33:6]

And I've covered that. It suggests that one day we could have that same understanding, and thus be equal to God.

I never agreed with such an idea, nor do I recall you ever justifying it.

Just because people understand logical things, doesn't mean that we would ever know everything as God does. People barely even know what species of fish live in the oceans, let alone would our ability to understand logical circumstances somehow correlate into a possibility that we might one day know everything.

 

[dlamberth]

What questions do you think that you asked?

The question I asked:. "What sort's of things would help to make us humans more of a human "Human Being"? What does science say about that?" (I edited the italic marked part because this is more what I wanted to write in the first place)

That question when explored by inner gnosis can give a person some pretty good answers. Different than Science, and maybe even better than Science. But together would be best. And that's the kind of thing where Science and Mysticism can meet.

You were the one that claimed to have reliable evidence. Instead you demonstrated that you did not even appear to understand the concept. A failure on your part is no excuse to take up your toys and leave.

Looks like I failed I guess. You win.

In the mean time nothing changed. I'll still be hanging with people who know spirit and the Divine. I've got a lot of company there.

The thing is, we're going round and round now. That's tiring. Your trying to put Mysticism into the same kind of thing as Science. I keep saying it doesn't work that way. They are different with different kinds of knowledge. Something else to consider is that reliable evidence, when given, from a Mystics perspective might look different than what you want or are expecting to see through the lens of Science. So it's being missed. If there's no interest to work with the understanding of difference between Mysticism and Science, than why continue? It would be a waste of time on both of our parts.

 

[Kylie]

I never agreed with such an idea, nor do I recall you ever justifying it.

Just because people understand logical things, doesn't mean that we would ever know everything as God does. People barely even know what species of fish live in the oceans, let alone would our ability to understand logical circumstances somehow correlate into a possibility that we might one day know everything.

If we could never understand it, then how can you possibly claim that it is some sort of advanced logic? It sounds to me like you are just making stuff up at this point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Love as science describes it is just chemicals. It's much more than that.

You've clearly only heard part of the science. No one thinks just chemicals are love.

 

[SelfSim]

You've clearly only heard part of the science. No one thinks just chemicals are love.

Depends on the type of chemicals one has floating around in there, I suppose(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Depends on the type of chemicals one has floating around in there, I suppose(?)

Quite - and they need a body and brain to act on and - most important - the stimulus of the target of the emotion...