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

[tas8831]

It was part of the curse.

Genesis 3:18
It will produce thorns and thistles for you

Can you provide evidence that this "curse" had the ability to make DNA polymerases produce errors during DNA replication?

 

[Ophiolite]

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

Thank you for your attempts to address my questions to date. I'I fear I have failed to communicate, despite thinking I had said it in multiple different ways, that I don't want the category of evidence you have, I wanted to see an example, or examples of that evidence. I now accept that this is problematic for you, perhaps because of the interlinked nature of the evidence, or some other reason. I'm OK with that, so don't invest any more time attempting satisfy what I'm saying was outstanding. Thanks again.

 

[coffee4u]

Can you provide evidence that this "curse" had the ability to make DNA polymerases produce errors during DNA replication?

If you want to talk about science in relation to the creation/fall/flood you may want to ask someone who actually follows creation science, of whom there are quite a few on CF.
While I am most certainly aware of creation science I do not follow it.

The fall corrupted the world. The bible calls what we live on now 'the groaning world'
Romans 8:22-24

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
If you want to talk theology then I am more than happy to reply.

 

[pitabread]

you may want to ask someone who actually follows creation science, of whom there are quite a few on CF.

I don't think this is actually the case. At least not who post on the open C/E forum.

In decades past, creationists would routinely cite professional creationist literature. But these days most seem largely unfamiliar with it.

 

[coffee4u]

I don't think this is actually the case. At least not who post on the open C/E forum.

In decades past, creationists would routinely cite professional creationist literature. But these days most seem largely unfamiliar with it.

There are Creation science people over in the Christian section. Not a lot but some. They probably stay in the Christian section due to how threads end up going over in this section.
If more here actually wished for an exchange of ideas rather than a put-down match then they may want to rethink the way they post.

I did think this was an interesting topic.

 

[pitabread]

There are Creation science people over in the Christian section. Not a lot but some. They probably stay in the Christian section due to how threads end up going over in this section.
If more here actually wished for an exchange of ideas rather than a put-down match then they may want to rethink the way they post.

That's fair.

 

[tas8831]

If you want to talk about science in relation to the creation/fall/flood you may want to ask someone who actually follows creation science, of whom there are quite a few on CF.
While I am most certainly aware of creation science I do not follow it.

And yet you make claims about evolution. Weird, huh?

The fall corrupted the world.

So did God know that this would happen, or was He taken by surprise?
Oh, by the way, bible verses do not impress me since I doubt their veracity/relevance/etc.

The bible calls what we live on now 'the groaning world'
Romans 8:22-24

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
If you want to talk theology then I am more than happy to reply.

Nah. I find it all rather childish.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

You don't think an all-powerful all-loving God could arrange that his creations didn't suffer as a result of their free choices?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

The evidence seems to better support the idea of an evil God rather than a good God

 

[Job 33:6]

You don't think an all-powerful all-loving God could arrange that his creations didn't suffer as a result of their free choices?

I don't think so. I'm pressing that idea that there's a logical conflict.

For example:
What extent would God need to go to remove suffering in an instance where I made a choice to rob a bank? If you and I were creators, what would we do? Maybe give everyone infinite money and resources so that no one would suffer as a result of my choice? How would you resolve suffering in this case? Maybe you would create a world that never had banks to begin with or perhaps never had any money at all?

Or what if I simply made a choice to go for a walk outside and I tripped and fell on the sidewalk.

How far would God need to go to create a world where I wouldn't suffer in these circumstances? Would God remove all cracks in sidewalks or make my bones indestructible so that I wouldn't suffer?

 

[Ophiolite]

Maybe you would create a world that never had banks to begin with?

A world without banks would be a world without bankers. Why are you Christians so obsessed with Paradise?

 

[coffee4u]

And yet you make claims about evolution. Weird, huh?

Since this board is called Creation & evolution it is a bit hard not to mention it. But I don't post here with the intention of talking about it, rather I am here to show creation. Since again, that is what this board is for.

So did God know that this would happen, or was He taken by surprise?

Of course he knew, God is outside of time. he knew that he would have to come and die for his creation before he even made it.

Oh, by the way, bible verses do not impress me since I doubt their veracity/relevance/etc.

You're an Atheist, I expect nothing else. That wont stop me from posting Bible verses.

Nah. I find it all rather childish.

Your choice to post to a Christian Board.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think so. I'm pressing that idea that there's a logical conflict.

For example:
What extent would God need to go to remove suffering in an instance where I made a choice to rob a bank? If you and I were creators, what would we do? Maybe give everyone infinite money and resources so that no one would suffer as a result of my choice? How would you resolve suffering in this case? Maybe you would create a world that never had banks to begin with or perhaps never had any money at all?

Or what if I simply made a choice to go for a walk outside and I tripped and fell on the sidewalk.

How far would God need to go to create a world where I wouldn't suffer in these circumstances? Would God remove all cracks in sidewalks or make my bones indestructible so that I wouldn't suffer?

All it takes is a little imagination. The world we see is consistent with a (roughly) deterministic physical evolution described by some fundamental physical laws. The living things we see (including us) are consistent with an evolutionary process (populations diverging from common ancestry via heritable variations undergoing natural selection) where cooperation and competition play yin and yang.

An omnipotent all-loving/good creator isn't bound by any of that; it can say how the world is going to be and how it will work. It could create a world where there are no products of evolutionary imperatives, with living things that really are in its own image - no nature 'red in tooth and claw', no competition, only cooperation, so neither the concept of, nor desire for, deliberate harm would arise; where potentially dangerous events either don't occur or never cause significant harm; where an exercise of free will is to select the most effective way to achieve maximum mutual benefit, and so-on.

If you insist on free-will including the ability to choose to do harm (why?), it could arrange that any such choice would always be frustrated and provide a positive, reinforcing, learning experience.

For me, the problem of evil is that it is simply unnecessary; the world we see is fundamentally at odds with the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving/good creator, to the extent that believers have to concoct a variety of anthropomorphic motivations and explanations for it that simply don't work - as I suggested earlier, the same arguments can be used to support the claim of an evil creator (why is there good in the world? to make the contrast with evil all the more intimidating, and so-on).

 

[Eftsoon]

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

If sin is taken to be absence and lack, suffering is the effect of that distance that is introduced between us and God. There is a departure from God and an eventual restoration. Key is that there is transformation in the struggle to return. The new creation doesn't erase all that has been won.
Perhaps in order to be individuals in relation to God, there must be a distance. All that we experience as suffering is the consequence of that distance. The alternative would be for us to essentially not exist.

 

[Larniavc]

where long-lived liquid water supplies are not physically possible.

Why is that? There’s water on the moon and Mars. Water is pretty common in the Solar system.

 

[tas8831]

Since this board is called Creation & evolution it is a bit hard not to mention it.

But relying on bible verses in a discussion in which science is necessitated is fruitless.

 

[Job 33:6]

If sin is taken to be absence and lack, suffering is the effect of that distance that is introduced between us and God. There is a departure from God and an eventual restoration. Key is that there is transformation in the struggle to return. The new creation doesn't erase all that has been won.
Perhaps in order to be individuals in relation to God, there must be a distance. All that we experience as suffering is the consequence of that distance. The alternative would be for us to essentially not exist.

Thank you.

 

[Job 33:6]

All it takes is a little imagination. The world we see is consistent with a (roughly) deterministic physical evolution described by some fundamental physical laws. The living things we see (including us) are consistent with an evolutionary process (populations diverging from common ancestry via heritable variations undergoing natural selection) where cooperation and competition play yin and yang.

An omnipotent all-loving/good creator isn't bound by any of that; it can say how the world is going to be and how it will work. It could create a world where there are no products of evolutionary imperatives, with living things that really are in its own image - no nature 'red in tooth and claw', no competition, only cooperation, so neither the concept of, nor desire for, deliberate harm would arise; where potentially dangerous events either don't occur or never cause significant harm; where an exercise of free will is to select the most effective way to achieve maximum mutual benefit, and so-on.

If you insist on free-will including the ability to choose to do harm (why?), it could arrange that any such choice would always be frustrated and provide a positive, reinforcing, learning experience.

For me, the problem of evil is that it is simply unnecessary; the world we see is fundamentally at odds with the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving/good creator, to the extent that believers have to concoct a variety of anthropomorphic motivations and explanations for it that simply don't work - as I suggested earlier, the same arguments can be used to support the claim of an evil creator (why is there good in the world? to make the contrast with evil all the more intimidating, and so-on).

So what would this look like with regards to my above examples? No banks? No money at all and thus no choice to steal said money?

Let's say I steal money, I become frustrated after being arrested, and I learn not to steal, as per your statement of a positive learning experience. But this sounds like suffering to me, being arrested.

Personally, I think the idea of calling God good or evil seems strange because we tend to think of these terms with respect to things like superheroes and villains of comic books. But really I view God more as justified when I think of the term "good".

 

[Ophiolite]

Let's say I steal money, I become frustrated after being arrested, and I learn not to steal, as per your statement of a positive learning experience. But this sounds like suffering to me, being arrested.

I have tried very hard to connect with what seems to be your perception of suffering. You include, at the low end of the severity spectrum, conditions that I cannot bring myself to call suffering, without assuming a near fatal overload of self indulgence. As I read you so far, you consider any adverse event, or situation, to be unreservedly equivalent to suffering. [I've explored several dictionary definitions and only occassionally, in the 'lower ranked' definitions does one even approach that sense.] Would you clarify your thinking? Thank you.

 

[Kylie]

Why is that? There’s water on the moon and Mars. Water is pretty common in the Solar system.

And let's not forget all those moons of Jupiter and Saturn...