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

[pitabread]

I believe that the missing element of Holiness may have stabilized that balance all of the time, rather than most of the time like our current immune system does. With Holiness still in place, either the bad bacteria were not present at all OR their presence was beneficial in ways that we currently do not understand.

What is the "holiness" in question here? How would it specifically affect biological organisms like bacterial colonies?

 

[Sabertooth]

What is the "holiness" in question here? How would it specifically affect biological organisms like bacterial colonies?

It is a spiritual quality much like the "flame" in Moses' burning bush.
If too much of that can kill a man, it is not a leap to suspect that it could keep "bad" bacteria in check.

 

[pitabread]

It is a spiritual quality much like the "flame" in Moses' burning bush.
If too much of that can kill a man, it is not a leap to suspect that it could keep "bad" bacteria in check.

How does it interact with populations of biological organisms? What's the actual mechanism here?

 

[loveofourlord]

Personally this is something that I've questioned for a while now. Not just how did sin change DNA, but what caused it. I think realsticly it had to be god or Satan, otherwise it be completely random, and theologically I don't think either is very good. If it was Satan, it would suggest Satan created much of the perfection in the world, and if god, it suggests he created much of the suffering and not sin.

 

[loveofourlord]

One issue is the fall out require far more massive mutations and changes then anything evolution even implies. Plus funny how even in the fossil record we don't find out of place creatures, very few deer for instance are meat eaters, not only did carnivores become meat eaters, but they also just randomly given the teeth and digestive system to eat meat.

 

[Sabertooth]

How does it interact with populations of biological organisms? What's the actual mechanism here?

We have only anecdotal information on how the [biological] reacts to intense Holiness. Its withdrawal means that there is no reliable reservoir to conduct experiments with. That is all we have. (It is a bit like angel physiology, in that regard.)

 

[Ophiolite]

We have only anecdotal information on how the [biological] reacts to intense Holiness. Its withdrawal means that there is no reliable reservoir to conduct experiments with. That is all we have. (It is a bit like angel physiology, in that regard.)

So, it is just a guess, based on assumptions and powered by desire for wish-fullfillment?

 

[Sabertooth]

So, it is just a guess, based on assumptions and powered by desire for wish-fullfillment?

No. It is an hypothesis (albeit an untestable one).
Spiritual phenomena transcend the physical.

 

[Ophiolite]

No. It is an hypothesis (albeit an untestable one).
Spiritual phenomena transcend the physical.

If it can't be tested, it is not a hypothesis, but a speculation. In referring to it as a conjecture and offering nothing substantive in support of that conjecture it appears to be a very poor speculation.

If it it not based upon guesses, assumptions and wishful-thinking, what is it based upon? So far I have not seen you offer anything outside of those categories. I may have missed them. You may have presented them and I may have misunderstood them. Please present them now - something other than a guess, assumption, etc. that justifies your speculation.

I re-read that. My questioning sounds a bit aggressive. That's not my intention. I am genuinely curious how you arrive at this without, to my eyes, any support. So, I am trying to understand your thinking.

 

[Sabertooth]

I am genuinely curious how you arrive at this without, to my eyes, any support.

On the natural side, it is a black-box approach to the whole of Scripture as it applies to that matter.

1. It is not vital that I should be correct on the specifics of that matter. I just see a potential pattern throughout Scripture.
   
2. Jesus promised that we, His believers, will not be left to our own devices. He will teach us what we need to know about spiritual matters, when we need to know it. Some spiritual trivia (like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?") will likely be at the very bottom of that list, however.

The spiritual realm is not beholden to the physical realm.

 

[Job 33:6]

Personally this is something that I've questioned for a while now. Not just how did sin change DNA, but what caused it. I think realsticly it had to be god or Satan, otherwise it be completely random, and theologically I don't think either is very good. If it was Satan, it would suggest Satan created much of the perfection in the world, and if god, it suggests he created much of the suffering and not sin.

I think the question of what caused sin goes back to our discussion in the other thread.

I've proposes the idea that sin must exist in creation.

Consider the following idea:
A person is walking down the sidewalk in their neighborhood, they step on an angled segment of sidewalk awkwardly and they sprain their ankle. They experience pain, suffering and evil.

In order for such evil to not exist in creation, the individual walking would need to have attributes of God. Either the person walking would need to be maximally aware of all cracks in sidewalks, to avoid any form of error while walking. Or perhaps the individual would need to be maximally powerful so that the individual could not be hurt if a wrong step was made on a sidewalk.

To really remove sin from creation, creation itself would have to possess attributes of God, perhaps even all of them, but Im not sure that such a creation could exist. Not without removing things like free willed choice and individual experience.

I gave this example as well, but maybe God could make creation as an infinite sea of grains of sand that felt no pain and made no decisions and had no independent minds to make choices. This would be a world without suffering. And yet, grains of sand cannot worship God, which is a purpose for creation described in scripture for us.

In order for us to do what we've been created to do, as per scripture, it appears as though sin must exist.

 

[Sabertooth]

They experience pain, suffering and evil.

Pain, apart from decay or deliberate wrongdoing, is not evil. It is just a warning system/a "trouble" light, if you will. If we had a hyper-healing factor (before the Fall), it would have only been a minor inconvenience.

 

[Job 33:6]

Pain, apart from decay or deliberate wrongdoing, is not evil. It is just a warning system/a "trouble" light, if you will. If we had a hyper-healing factor (before the Fall), it would have only been a minor inconvenience.

How do you define evil? I guess I'd agree. An ant could suffer without necessarily being evil or suffering due to an evil act, if that's what you mean.

Though I think that there is a strong connection between why evil exists as there is with why suffering exists. People have choices to conduct evil or sinful activities. Remove sin and you would be removing people's freedom to make choices. Remove sin and perhaps Adam would not have truly even had a choice to eat of the apple, for example. Such options to conduct evil or sin, would have to be removed. In all aspects in all fathomable ways.

Whether it is suffering with evil or suffering without evil, I think my ideas still address the issue.

 

[Ophiolite]

On the natural side, it is a black-box approach to the whole of Scripture as it applies to that matter.

1. It is not vital that I should be correct on the specifics of that matter. I just see a potential pattern throughout Scripture.
   
2. Jesus promised that we, His believers, will not be left to our own devices. He will teach us what we need to know about spiritual matters, when we need to know it. Some spiritual trivia (like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?") will likely be at the very bottom of that list, however.

The spiritual realm is not beholden to the physical realm.

OK, I think. This black-box, from where I am sitting, is indistinguishable from guesses and assumptions.

You appear to be saying that you have constructed a view of certain events based on nothing more than a gestalt feel for what Scripture tells you. Yep. That looks likes guesses and assumptions to me.

That's fine if that's what you've got, but I'd welcome you acknowledging that. If it's more than that then I am asking for the fourth or fifth time, so far unsuccessfully 'what is it?'

 

[Job 33:6]

OK, I think. This black-box, from where I am sitting, is indistinguishable from guesses and assumptions.

You appear to be saying that you have constructed a view of certain events based on nothing more than a gestalt feel for what Scripture tells you. Yep. That looks likes guesses and assumptions to me.

That's fine if that's what you've got, but I'd welcome you acknowledging that. If it's more than that then I am asking for the fourth or fifth time, so far unsuccessfully 'what is it?'

Commences hijacking of conversation*

My thought on this idea is that some things are fine to guess or as it is more commonly called "to have faith in".

Maybe we had this talk on the other thread, but if we examine the deepest questions of existence, why do we exist, rather than there being nothing that exists. And even further, in accordance with the anthropic principal, why do things exist in ways in which we can even contemplate and discuss existence, is a great mystery.

But I think that one side, theists, are approaching the topic with the belief, or "guess" that there is greater meaning, purpose, and as it is commonly referred to "design" behind why everything exists (though not to be confused with intelligent design of the discovery institute). Whereas often times when we examine an atheistic position, we are left typically with beliefs that perhaps there is no purpose, no greater meaning beyond what each person makes of it, or no real reason for why existence has such an order that we might contemplate it, as opposed to no order at all.

And in this sense, while I think theists are playing guess work, I think it's feasible that theism could very well be correct. And through that by extension, people flock to religions such as Christianity that make efforts to explain this meaning and purpose, thereby resulting in this "black box" where God reveals details on his time and not on ours.

 

[Ophiolite]

My thought on this idea is that some things are fine to guess or as it is more commonly called "to have faith in".

I agree, as long as the person making the guesses recognises and acknowledges that that is what they are doing. So far @Sabertooth has not done so, nor offered the alternative of demonstrating that they are not guessing. Hence my continued questions that may appear like hostile interrogation, but are more akin to frustrated bewilderment.

But I think that one side, theists, are approaching the topic with the belief, or "guess" that there is greater meaning, purpose, and as it is commonly referred to "design" behind why everything exists.
Whereas often times when we examine an atheistic position, we are left typically with beliefs that perhaps there is no purpose, no greater meaning beyond what each person makes of it, or no real reason for why existence has such an order that we might contemplate it, as opposed to no order at all.

(Slightly edited, because I'm a compulsive editor.)
I suspect a common atheist position is more nuanced that that. (That's a wild guess based on a biased interpretation of the comments of a non-random suite of atheists.) I suspect it reads more like "there might be more to this than meets the eye, but until just a flicker of it does meet my eye I doubt it's worth paying much heed to". The end effect is practically the same - at least until a flicker occurs.
I observed on another thread recently that I regret the Intelligent Design movement, because they've made it near impossible for conventional scientists to investigate intelligent design. (I emphasise the lower case.) Likewise I don't rule out a teleological aspect to the universe and object to its automatic rejection. I suspect (this isn't even a guess, just an attempt play Captain Picard - "Make it so") that teleology kicks in the moment conscious, self-aware intelligence appears in the universe.
But I don't let either of those unconventional views impact the pragmatic manner in which I conduct most aspects of my life and (at the risk of sounding patronising) I find those who do to be somewhat self-indulgent. (Some of the time.)

Excuse the numerous parenthetical observations, but I don't find it difficult to hold two contrary ideas in my mind at the same time and the parentheses help to convey that. I'm told that can be a sign of madness, but I say no. Madness is my current project to try to do that with three mutually contradictory ideas at the same time.

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree, as long as the person making the guesses recognises and acknowledges that that is what they are doing. So far @Sabertooth has not done so, nor offered the alternative of demonstrating that they are not guessing. Hence my continued questions that may appear like hostile interrogation, but are more akin to frustrated bewilderment.

(Slightly edited, because I'm a compulsive editor.)
I suspect a common atheist position is more nuanced that that. (That's a wild guess based on a biased interpretation of the comments of a non-random suite of atheists.) I suspect it reads more like "there might be more to this than meets the eye, but until just a flicker of it does meet my eye I doubt it's worth paying much heed to". The end effect is practically the same - at least until a flicker occurs.
I observed on another thread recently that I regret the Intelligent Design movement, because they've made it near impossible for conventional scientists to investigate intelligent design. (I emphasise the lower case.) Likewise I don't rule out a teleological aspect to the universe and object to its automatic rejection. I suspect (this isn't even a guess, just an attempt play Captain Picard - "Make it so") that teleology kicks in the moment conscious, self-aware intelligence appears in the universe.
But I don't let either of those unconventional views impact the pragmatic manner in which I conduct most aspects of my life and (at the risk of sounding patronising) I find those who do to be somewhat self-indulgent. (Some of the time.)

Excuse the numerous parenthetical observations, but I don't find it difficult to hold two contrary ideas in my mind at the same time and the parentheses help to convey that. I'm told that can be a sign of madness, but I say no. Madness is my current project to try to do that with three mutually contradictory ideas at the same time.

I'll read this a few times over to process it. But yes, oftentimes my fellow believers tend to take a step beyond belief to suggest that maybe our ideas are knowledge. But at the end of the day, we all seem to be left with the same questions in the end, whether we have ideas about what the answers might be to those questions or not. And whether we really know if our beliefs are bombproof, or even simply light-rain proof, I think there is a level of honesty we should all have at the end of the day.

 

[Phred]

And whether we really know if our beliefs are bombproof, or even simply light-rain proof, I think there is a level of honesty we should all have at the end of the day.

At the end of the day I accept that life evolved and I invite you to examine all the evidence for yourself. You believe that God is real and you have no verifiable evidence to examine. That's where we are.

 

[Job 33:6]

At the end of the day I accept that life evolved and I invite you to examine all the evidence for yourself. You believe that God is real and you have no verifiable evidence to examine. That's where we are.

I've made a few posts now. You're welcome to respond to them. My posts aren't denying evolution, rather they're discussing other points of interest in the discussion, such as why does suffering exist?

 

[Sabertooth]

So far @Sabertooth has not done so, nor offered the alternative of demonstrating that they are not guessing.

For lack of a better word, my conclusions are based on historical, "literary" evidence in the absence of contemporary, reproducible phenomena.