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

[jacknife]

My spirituality is water, i see the divine aspect in how order is formed from chaos. How things settle into cycles be they seasons or life and death, darkness and light. I sometimes just sit and watch the stars for an hour or two woundering what cycles exist we don't yet understand out there.
I meant to quote @Ophiolite with this but I messed up!

 

[pitabread]

Yeah you still aren't getting it. If you have to come up with some formula to figure out which is which, you are still appealing to your reason instead of giving the spiritual a chance. Because you will always find a way to reason any experience away if that's your goal.

Then explain it to me. How does one give the spiritual "a chance"? What exactly are you referring to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only it doesn't. And how would you know if they are valid? Do you make a habit of telling people they don't see what they say they saw, or experience what they said they did? Even when you don't know what that was? Arrogant much?

Personal experience only convinces the person that had the experience and those events are usually misinterpreted. How do I know that? There are countless version of God, not just Yahweh, Allah, and Vishnu and others. Even within sects there are countless versions of God that contradict with other sects. Your experience is not evidence because it will not convince any rational thinker. And the odds are that even if it was a vision from God (highly highly unlikely) you probably misinterpreted it.


You made the error of putting an interpretation on it and I am sure that you did not test it properly. Amateurs make the error of looking for confirmation. Unfortunately people can rationalize almost anything into confirmation. A proper test is to think of a reasonable way that your interpretation could be shown to be false and testing it based upon that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not everyone follows your idea of what is reliable evidence. In fact most don't.

Agree, most people do not understand the concept of evidence. That is why courts often have to spend time trying to educate people during a trial. The education is usually rather subtle, but it is there.

 

[renniks]

Personal experience only convinces the person that had the experience and those events are usually misinterpreted. How do I know that? There are countless version of God, not just Yahweh, Allah, and Vishnu and others. Even within sects there are countless versions of God that contradict with other sects. Your experience is not evidence because it will not convince any rational thinker. And the odds are that even if it was a vision from God (highly highly unlikely) you probably misinterpreted it.


You made the error of putting an interpretation on it and I am sure that you did not test it properly. Amateurs make the error of looking for confirmation. Unfortunately people can rationalize almost anything into confirmation. A proper test is to think of a reasonable way that your interpretation could be shown to be false and testing it based upon that.

Ah, so you must never believe that your own personal experiences are legit. Must be a confusing way to live.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, so you must never believe that your own personal experiences are legit. Must be a confusing way to live.

It depends upon the experiences. Why is this so hard to understand? There is a saying of Carl Sagan's that you should apply:

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

Unfortunately many are brought up with a belief in a God that does not appear to be with merit so such a belief does not appear to be extraordinary to them. To get rid of that bias you need to think what it would take you to be convinced by a Muslim or a Hindu that his beliefs were right. Now apply those same standards to your beliefs and see how they hold up. Can you provided that sort of evidence?

That is why when someone has some sort of spiritual event they always apply their own religion to it and it seems to fit. It is also why such events should be tested.

There is no need to test everyday events. I see a car going by often enough and I know how they work. I do not need to continually reinvent the wheel. The problem with those with religious beliefs is that they assume that they have already "invented the wheel' when other religious beliefs demonstrate that this is not so.

 

[renniks]

There is no need to test everyday events. I see a car going by often enough and I know how they work.

There's no reason to believe it's a real car. It's probably just your perception of a car. Quite likely a figment of your imagination.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

There's no reason to believe it's a real car. It's probably just your perception of a car. Quite likely a figment of your imagination.

at which point when you reiterate this, we call the people. Do you realize what argument you are making?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's no reason to believe it's a real car. It's probably just your perception of a car. Quite likely a figment of your imagination.

LOL We test everyday objects all of the time. And if someone challenged us it would be no problem to show evidence for our beliefs. You on the other hand have no reliable evidence for your God beliefs so you have to attack evidence. That does not work. This is an incredibly failed Tu Quoque fallacy.

 

[renniks]

LOL We test everyday objects all of the time. And if someone challenged us it would be no problem to show evidence for our beliefs. You on the other hand have no reliable evidence for your God beliefs so you have to attack evidence. That does not work. This is an incredibly failed Tu Quoque fallacy.

You really don't understand sarcasm?

" Evidence" is highly subjective. To some religions this life is an illusion.
What people consider evidence isn't the same across the board.
Evidence for God abounds unless one decides to ignore it and take the unlikely stance that all we see is self creating. No wonder it's a minority position.

What a boring existence it must be to insist on seeing everything through the lense of a godless universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really don't understand sarcasm?

" Evidence" is highly subjective. To some religions this life is an illusion.
What people consider evidence isn't the same across the board.
Evidence for God abounds unless one decides to ignore it and take the unlikely stance that all we see is self creating. No wonder it's a minority position.

What a boring existence it must be to insist on seeing everything through the lense of a godless universe.

No, evidence can be highly subjective. Especially when a person does not understand the concept.

You do not appear to understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

You really don't understand sarcasm?

" Evidence" is highly subjective. To some religions this life is an illusion.
What people consider evidence isn't the same across the board.
Evidence for God abounds unless one decides to ignore it and take the unlikely stance that all we see is self creating. No wonder it's a minority position.

What a boring existence it must be to insist on seeing everything through the lense of a godless universe.

Actually it is rather boring to think that there is a simple answer for everything. Figuring out why is way less boring than just saying Goddidit to everything.

 

[dlamberth]

Your answer is self-contradictory - unless you're writing unconsciously...

What part is self-contradictory? Maybe we can clear it up.

Consciousness may find rationality difficult, but can sustain it for short periods.

And the rest of the time?

When looking at trees, plants and life in general, Native Americans don't relate to any of that as nouns. Rather they experience it all as verbs. Its a spiritual perspective for them.

 

[pitabread]

What a boring existence it must be to insist on seeing everything through the lense of a godless universe.

Why would you think that? The universe is fascinating with or without some divine creator.

 

[dlamberth]

You do not appear to understand the concept of evidence.

Evidence of the spiritual is of a different form than what your demanding, and so you will never be satisfied with any answer given. Because the spiritual is of a different paradigm than the physical it inherently looks for a different kind of evidence than what we look for in the physical. Yet your demanding a physical kind of evidence for something that isn't physical. I'm sure that renniks understands the concepts of evidence. But he's working from a different paradigm than you. So the evidence that he looks for is of a different trajectory than what your looking for.

 

[dlamberth]

The universe is fascinating with or without some divine creator.

That it is!! And no way would I ever knock that experience.

What's worked for myself though is that it gets even more fascinating when experiencing the Divine within the Universe. A whole new layer of fascination is added to the Whole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence of the spiritual is of a different form than what your demanding, and so you will never be satisfied with any answer given. Because the spiritual is of a different paradigm than the physical it inherently looks for a different kind of evidence than what we look for in the physical. Yet your demanding a physical kind of evidence for something that isn't physical. I'm sure that renniks understands the concepts of evidence. But he's working from a different paradigm than you. So the evidence that he looks for is of a different trajectory than what your looking for.

The problem is that that does not really qualify as evidence. Again, if it was "evidence" it would only support one side. When all sides are supported by the same "evidence" it is clearly reliable evidence. It is not rational evidence. It is almost always mere confirmation bias.

 

[Kylie]

Why can't it be both?

So you are suggesting that the explanation is both that it is a completely rational and evidence based naturalistic process, and AT THE SAME EXACT TIME it is supernatural and scientifically inexplicable?

 

[Kylie]

The universe has no personality. You can't communicate with what isn't alive.

You wouldn't be interpreting Ophiolite's experiences through your perceptions, would you? It's not just insulting, it's close minded.

 

[Kylie]

Not everyone follows your idea of what is reliable evidence. In fact most don't.

Citation required.

And scientific advancement only comes based on certain kinds of evidence. Anecdotal evidence, supposition, etc, are not counted among them.