History of viruses is a proof of creationism

[mindlight]

The history of viruses is actually a proof of the biblical account taken literally as there has been a gradual development of bad viruses from a situation where there were far less of them. In fact the really deadly viruses have not always been with us but are mutations on earlier less dangerous forms. Measles & Small pox are two of the oldest ones and HIV and Sars-cov-2 are both new arrivals from the last 100 years.

It was only after the globally devastating flood that men started eating meat. In the harsh post flood world it may have been the only source of nutrition available at the time. Great hunters like Nimrod are described in Genesis and he may have wiped out a great many species that no longer walk this earth. The narratives of hunters and prey date from this time. From the moment of the flood plagues pass into the biblical story line. Many of these may well have originated from the eating of diseased meat from hunted animals. There are no accounts of plagues before this time with people mainly dying of old age

EDIT: removed reference to flu as recent as not accurate

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

If there was something people of prerecorded history died of I can guarantee old age was the least likely cause.

 

[mindlight]

If there was something people of prerecorded history died of I can guarantee old age was the least likely cause.

They were not dying of covid-19 or HIV in prehistoric times. How would you prove that viruses were more likely to kill people in the past when many of the most viralent strains we know today did not exist then - being new developments?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

They were not dying of covid-19 or HIV in prehistoric times. How would you prove that viruses were more likely to kill people in the past when many of the most viralent strains we know today did not exist then - neing new developments?

First how would you know what viral strains existed in prerecorded history and how deadly they were ?

Secondly people lived in small hunter gatherer tribes and any viruses would not travel far so however deadly they were the chances would be that at worst they would wipe out some particular tribe and die out.

Thirdly the life expectancy of people were more likely limited by starvation, lack of shelter, injuries, wild animals and the like.

There were in all likelihood very, very few who got to what we would consider retirement age. Let alone couple of decades added to that.

 

[mindlight]

First how would you know what viral strains existed in prerecorded history and how deadly they were ?

There is no mention of plagues in scripture from before the flood.

Scientifically we would need an example of a virus we could precisely date to prove that viruses existed. But that would not give us much idea of prevalence or indeed of how dangerous these were to the people of the time whose immune systems may have been stronger

Secondly people lived in small hunter gatherer tribes and any viruses would not travel far so however deadly they were the chances would be that at worst they would wipe out some particular tribe and die out.

This could well be true if we assume that only humans carried it. In the case of bubonic plague that was not true.But again little scientific evidence before Justinian plague in 6th century so this is just speculation.

Thirdly the life expectancy of people were more likely limited by starvation, lack of shelter, injuries, wild animals and the like.

If we accept the Primative ---> advanced narrative and deny a global flood. This probably was the situation just after the flood though and explains the advent of meat eating and hunting , the desire to band together ( babel) and the arrival of a great many viruses from the eating of diseased meat or contact with diseased animals

There were in all likelihood very, very few who got to what we would consider retirement age. Let alone couple of decades added to that.

Biblically that is clearly untrue. The fossil record gives no evidence of diminished life spans either

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Biblically that is clearly untrue.

Sure, if we use creation myths as our basis we can just forget science all together and everything goes.

Personal imagination is the limit and no evidence is necessary.

 

[mindlight]

Sure, if we use creation myths as our basis we can just forget science all together and everything goes.

Personal imagination is the limit and no evidence is necessary.

You have provided no evidence that says anything to contradict the OP.

Revealed witness and historical testimony are two other ways by which we can determine matters where science lacks the capability to prove its findings

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

You have provided no evidence that says anything to contradict the OP.

It is not my job to disapprove your fantasies. It is your job to prove them. You make the claim.

Which, since it is a creation myth and among hundreds of others with equal lack of proof, is bit problematical.

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

 

[mindlight]

It is not my job to disapprove your fantasies. It is your job to prove them. You make the claim.

Which, since it is a creation myth and among hundreds of others with equal lack of proof, is bit problematical.

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

It does not matter if it is your job or not you could not do it anyway. Noone could using the scientific method cause it is not something that is experimentally provable one way or the other, hence the need to use more appropriate methodologies. The only scientific evidence here is of an increasing number of viruses and variations of such over time which supports the creationist hypothesis.

Your icon suggests you are a Catholic but you appear to be suggesting by the link you provided that Christian views of creation are no better than those of other religions. IF you are a Christian why did you use that link and if not why do you call yourself a Catholic.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

IF you are a Christian why did you use that link and if not why do you call yourself a Catholic.

Being Catholic doesn’t mean you have to deny the evidence of things like evolution or earth’s geological age.

It is basic debate stuff. You make a claim about viruses you have to prove it. It is not for others to disprove it.

You fail in this. So what do suggest ? That we just take your word for it because you feel it is a grand idea ?

 

[mindlight]

Being Catholic doesn’t mean you have to deny the evidence of things like evolution or earth’s geological age.

It is basic debate stuff. You make a claim about viruses you have to prove it. It is not for others to disprove it.

You fail in this. So what do suggest ? That we just take your word for it because you feel it is a grand idea ?

I offered revealed and historical evidences. There is no scientific evidence. If there were you or another would have used it in rebuttal

 

[Brightmoon]

Mind light you have a bizarre idea about viruses . Something similar was probably the first lifeform to evolve as viruses are essentially living chemicals . Retroviruses are evolved from the DNA of eucaryotic ( cells with nuclei) organisms. You’ll always have viruses and you’ve always had viruses.

the current virus Covid 19 is a problem in humans because we haven’t had previous exposure to it and it’s contagious. But viruses always form and evolve in all species . Homo sapiens is getting hammered this year but next year it might be turtles . The point is that this always happens. It’s just that we noticed it because it’s attacking humans.

 

[mindlight]

Mind light you have a bizarre idea about viruses . Something similar was probably the first lifeform to evolve as viruses are essentially living chemicals . Retroviruses are evolved from the DNA of eucaryotic ( cells with nuclei) organisms. You’ll always have viruses and you’ve always had viruses.

the current virus Covid 19 is a problem in humans because we haven’t had previous exposure to it and it’s contagious. But viruses always form and evolve in all species . Homo sapiens is getting hammered this year but next year it might be turtles . The point is that this always happens. It’s just that we noticed it because it’s attacking humans.

"Probably" sounds speculative. There is no such thing as chemical evolution. Viruses are in effect parasites on life and coulld not therefore preceed the life they feed off. But I do believe they were a part of Gods original creation.

 

[Brightmoon]

"Probably" sounds speculative. There is no such thing as chemical evolution. Viruses are in effect parasites on life and coulld not therefore preceed the life they feed off. But I do believe they were a part of Gods original creation.

you do realize that DNA is a chemical, right? . Life basically is a series of biochemical processes that run on an energy gradient.“ Probably“ just means that I’m too lazy to look up tons of abiogenesis research ( note ,not evolution) and have you deliberately ignore it so that you can stay in denial .

 

[mindlight]

you do realize that DNA is a chemical, right? . Life basically is a series of biochemical processes that run on an energy gradient.“ Probably“ just means that I’m too lazy to look up tons of abiogenesis research ( note ,not evolution) and have you deliberately ignore it so that you can stay in denial .

You could look at DNA like that or you could look at it as an amazing depository of information by which the structures and processes of life itself are established. But there is no example of unstructured random chemicals spontaneously producing more information laden structures that are in turn able to reproduce and even progress. There is no example of building life from scratch from basic chemicals.

Abiogenesis is a myth. It is just far easier to disprove than biological evolution which is also a myth in its,macro form cause basically it never ever happens

 

[The Barbarian]

Abiogenesis is a myth. It is just far easier to disprove than biological evolution which is also a myth in its,macro form cause basically it never ever happens

Abiogenesis is the theory that the earth brought forth life.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

I believe He is right. How about you?

 

[mindlight]

Abiogenesis is the theory that the earth brought forth life.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

I believe He is right. How about you?

Yes God did it suddenly, it was not accidental spontaneous and gradual

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes God did it suddenly,

"Suddenly" is your addition to His word. That's not what He said.

it was not accidental spontaneous and gradual

Nature is not accidental. He just made it to do what He intended it to do.

Creationists began to move toward "intelligent design", as the accumulating evidence became harder and harder to reconcile with special creationism. As one IDer puts it:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.


In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

 

[mindlight]

"Suddenly" is your addition to His word. That's not what He said.



Nature is not accidental. He just made it to do what He intended it to do.

Creationists began to move toward "intelligent design", as the accumulating evidence became harder and harder to reconcile with special creationism. As one IDer puts it:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.


In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

By sudden I mean 6 days. There is no contradiction with natural law or even ideas of emergence, shared code and similar answers to complex problems. The main difference is timescale. Creationists see this in a massively accelerated time frame because they see God as organising the process rather than random natural processes over billions of years. I can share all your actual verifiable facts and still disagree with you

 

[The Barbarian]

By sudden I mean 6 days.

The text itself says that the 6 days are not literal ones. Mornings and evenings with no sun to have them clearly shows the "yom" in this case were not periods of time, but categories of creation.

There is no contradiction with natural law or even ideas of emergence, shared code and similar answers to complex problems. The main difference is timescale. Creationists see this in a massively accelerated time frame because they see God as organising the process rather than random natural processes over billions of years.

Nature is not random. God made it so that it is deterministic at the level humans experience. But even if it was random, that would be no problem for divine providence, which can use contingency or necessity to effect His will.

God does not have to tinker with creation to make it work.