Part 2, an attack on creationism

[camanintx]

Does anyone see any contradiction in the fact that science often affirms the Big Bang theory whilst in the same breath deriding Creationists? No? I bet not. But I do...

Are you saying there is no evidence to support the idea that our whole universe was at one time a small, dense, hot ball of plasma?

 

[sandandfoam]

Are you saying there is no evidence to support the idea that our whole universe was at one time a small, dense, hot ball of plasma?

Where did the ball of plasma come from?

 

[Random]

Where did the ball of plasma come from?

Where did the Smallest Piece of the Smallest Piece of anything EVER come from? To paraphrase the question...

One can only logically conclude that @ some point either within or without "Time", some-thing, a prime particle, something must simply have BEEN, ie. come into existence ex-nihilo.

Any other explanation involves the eternality of matter and energy, which is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

 

[sandandfoam]

Where did the Smallest Piece of the Smallest Piece of anything EVER come from? To paraphrase the question...

One can only logically conclude that @ some point either within or without "Time", some-thing, a prime particle, something must simply have BEEN, ie. come into existence ex-nihilo.

Any other explanation involves the eternality of matter and energy, which is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

Nicely paraphrased, at that point, with our current level of understanding do science and religion not meet?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi! I would never infer that God hates anybody! No, no! I'm sure God loves everybody. But some people are allergic to peanuts, its a tragic fact. So sad! Theologically speaking, (us peanuts don't do much of that) this sad allergy would be a result of the fall. All us peanuts are sad and groan because of the fall of God's beautiful creation.

First: So food allergies stem from God's punishment of Adam and Eve? Does this apply to ailments besides food allergies?

Second: This is an example of special pleading. On the one hand, you gave this in support of the idea that God created all things (and hence peanuts):

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Now it seems you're saying that despite this, certain things (e.g. peanut allergies) were not created by God. Which is it? Did God create all things or not?

 

[Random]

Nicely paraphrased, at that point, with our current level of understanding do science and religion not meet?

They certainly do! :yes:

 

[camanintx]

Where did the ball of plasma come from?

That's a good question but one which the Big Bang Theory doesn't address. While COBE and WMAP are revealing much about the initial stages of our universe's development, they don't show us anything about what may have existed before the big bang.

Random's comment seemed to imply that there was no more evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory than creationism. There are some hypotheses, like Brane Cosmology, which attempt to explain how the universe could come into existence, but sensors have not developed to the point where they can evaluate their predictions. Compare this to creationism which makes absolutely no testable predictions.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I did. I showed your that the first writing on the subject, well after the event, by a Christian church leader, does not mention it. To me this is strong evidence that the story, which appears 100 years later, is probably made up. Certainly there is no persuasive evidence in favor of its truth.

A historical source "doesn't mention it", therefore it didn't happen? I have six historical sources that say it happened, and you don't have a single source that says it didn't -- just one that doesn't mention it.

Because, obviously, it indicates that the reason it "makes sense" or satisfies your intuition or common sense is not a reflection of its truth, but of your conditioning. As I said, had you been raised in Saudi Arabia, and used this same method of intuition, Islam would make sense to you. It wouldn't make sense to me, because of the lack of evidence. Common sense and intuition are not good guides to truth. Are you at all familiar with the research done in the last 30 years about how our brains tend to fool us, common errors in thinking? For example, human beings think in terms of stories and pay more attention to stories than to statistics that actually contain more accurate information. Human beings tend to think in terms of causation and purposeful agents, even when what is really going on is plain old randomness.

But you have to recognize that needing evidence for belief is an idea in itself. You acquired this idea from the conditioning you received from your environment and culture. If you were raised in Saudi Arabia, you probably wouldn't have this idea and be Islamic too.

Well that's nice, but really undermines your position that it's true. We all tend to believe things and see things we want to see, which is one of the main ways we make errors. It gives me tremendous hope and contentment to think that I look like Queen Latifah, write like P.G. Wodehouse, and sing like Patsy Cline. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it true. To say that you believe something because you have faith is the same as saying that you believe because you believe, without confirming evidence. (your definition) Can you see how likely that is to lead you into error? How you have no way to determine whether what you believe is true?

I believe it is because it is the worldview that makes the most sense to me. You talk as if evidence will lead me to a worldview. It won't. As an alternative, I could assume no worldview, which to me, would lead me to a purposeless, self-indulgent life.

Do you NOT believe that evidence is a good way to determine truth?

Of course I do, I have said this several times. Faith is not a substitution for evidence based knowledge.

How do you tell which is which? For example, did the sun actually stand still in the sky for Joshua?

Really there is no definitve way to know. To be honest, I don't know if the sun actualy stood still for Joshua, but I suspect it didn't. But really, how much does it really matter if the lesson is learned? Some Christians squabble over these type of issues, but in the real message of Christ, these things do not really matter that much.

What are you talking about? I think some atheists, including I believe Richard Dawkins, do not believe that we really do have free will. I do, because I see it differently. It's a very complicated subject, and worthy of a separate thread, which I will start if you want. In any case, as I have said, God does not solve the problem.

I would be happy to start a new thread. What solves the problem is having a spirit/soul that is a free agent not controlled by the external laws of nature.

My entire ethical basis is quite different than yours. I guess for me they're all timeless, as based on human nature. In any case, for about the tenth time, you failed to answer my question. You think there is a timeless, absolute principle that two men should not love each other or express their love physically. Why? How about slavery? Timeless? Or cultural? During Biblical times slavery was moral, but now is immoral? Same for polygamy? Too much relativism for me. I actually consider my ethics to be fairly objective, but I may be fooling myself. I certainly like to think they don't change enough so that I would ever accept capturing another person and keeping them as my property. In any case, I understand that you think that some things are permanently wrong (homosexuality) while others not, in a cultural context (slavery). My question: how do you tell which is which?

The Bible is quite clear which is which. Most of the NT discusses these ethics. I believe there are timeless principles as far as what is ethical and what is not.

Slavery is simply not part of that ethical system. The Christian theology is about changing people's hearts, not reforming society. I believe slavery was a social-economic system that was a method of distribution of wealth for many of these ancient societies. It was better for the slave to live in a good house that could provide them with shelter and food, rather than living in poverty. People sold themselves into slavery because they could not provide for themselves or pay their debts.

Today, it makes sense that slavery is illegal because it does not benefit the slave in any way. The slavery of the past few centuries is very different from ancient times. Certainly God made know his feelings of slavery based on forced labor and racism in Exodus.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

How does "This is the land I gave you, kill everyone in it," make sense to you?

You are missing my point. Is it deliberate? The point is not that bad things happen, I've made this quite clear. The point is that you worship a God who commands us to do evil. How does this make sense?

First off, in Christian theology, God's will defines what is good and evil. It is not possile for God to be evil. Certainly, genocide commanded by a mere human is unethical. But God has an authority that we do not have.

You have to understand that in my belief, God is all-powerful and all-knowing. There are 5 billion people on the planet, and he knows the heart of each one of us. Each day we live is borrowed time from God because He sustains this Universe. We are all fallen creatures, destined for death. Who am I to question what fits into His plan? What are my credentials?

You also have to understand that God is all-powerful and will reconcile all things after death. We will all die someday and if an innocent child is killed in conflict, then God is fully capable of compensating in the after-life.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The laws of science do not have being. That's mere platonism.

Are you saying the law of gravity doesn't have an ontological basis; that is merely exists in our knowledge?

To me it is absurd to assume the gravity is not a real, characteristic of the Universe.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I believe there are many things we can't know, or can't know now. We don't even know what we can't know! However, we've been pleasantly surprised many times before, so I think it's worthwhile to keep trying.
At no point does it make sense to me to give up, say we can't know, and call it God. OTOH, I don't have a problem with ascribing the word God to the ineffable mystery at the heart of everything. Of course, that God is not Yahweh, and did not inspire the collection of myths, history, poetry, lies and pornography that is the Bible.

But we certainly know what lives in the domain of the scientific method and what doesn't. Metaphysics is not something the scientific method cannot answer.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I did respond to the points made, didn't I?

No.

Ok, what point did I not answer?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The purpose of my life is for me to be happy. The purpose of your life is for you to be happy. Because we are both human, contributing to your happiness increases my own, and vice versa. Since we are all human, we are all equally entitled to the same rights and respect.
Occasionally we find ourselves in a situation where our own happiness comes at the cost of someone else's. An example that comes to my mind is if you're stuck in a horrible relationship with someone who doesn't treat you well. In that situation, I would leave, possibly making that individual unhappy. Maybe it's just a rationalization, but in my mind I do not think that allowing someone else to treat me badly is in their true self-interest either, so it benefits both of us for me to leave. That is, it's not good for them to allow them to make me unhappy. In any case, I have been in this situation, and think it's preferable to go ahead and leave even if it does hurt the other person. However, wreaking revenge on them is neither necessary nor helpful to me.

Happiness is an emotion. Some people think snorting cocaine or beating up weaker people makes them happy. If we are just creatures that are interested in feeding our own emotional needs, what keeps us from stepping on other people to get what we want? Certainly, you can't deny that there are many thugs in the world that are perfectly happy stomping on other people to get what they want.

If you don't know what happiness is, I can't explain it to you. If you don't know what love is, I feel sorry for you. I believe that for human beings love is essential to happiness. No love, no happiness.

I never said I didn't know what happiness and love were (why would you assume that?). Happiness is an emotion and love is an action. What I was asking is how you define them. If happiness is the cornerstone of your purpose/meaning in life, certainly you can define it and how it relates to you morality. You see, my ethics have little to do with "happiness", and all to do with love.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

First off, in Christian theology, God's will defines what is good and evil. It is not possile for God to be evil. Certainly, genocide commanded by a mere human is unethical. But God has an authority that we do not have.

You have to understand that in my belief, God is all-powerful and all-knowing. There are 5 billion people on the planet, and he knows the heart of each one of us. Each day we live is borrowed time from God because He sustains this Universe. We are all fallen creatures, destined for death. Who am I to question what fits into His plan? What are my credentials?

You also have to understand that God is all-powerful and will reconcile all things after death. We will all die someday and if an innocent child is killed in conflict, then God is fully capable of compensating in the after-life.

Your logic is impeccable, given your faith-based assumptions. The frightening thing is that, had you happened to be born in a culture which placed its faith in an ancient text that is less amenable than the New Testament to 'warm and fuzzy' interpretations, you might not be apologizing for ancient genocide but for modern-day terrorist attacks.

 

[roli]

Theories are like maps, Roli. They are not meant to be comprehensive of every feature on the terrain they refer to. Instead, they are meant to be useful guides to predicting and navigating the terrain.

That's my point ,at least in referring to the thread's topic, " attack on creationism" .
in that science, which not being fully comprehensive, is seemingly relied on by many a skeptic and the like in discounting a young earth, as if it were absolute proof.
It seems to me, many, not all, non theists who study science,and or observe it,or hold to a position of science that discounts young earth, do so, in much the same way as if it were more a relgion,in hopes it will someday point to and support the evidence for evolution destroying God and creation altogether.
But there is a greater agenda and it will come out one of these days,anyone who studies the humanist manifesto's will see what that agenda is reall yall about.


If the same effort was invested in using science, which again is not comprehensive,as a means to strongly study a young earth and not have a bias non theist postion intitially, out of the gate,maybe man would discover more proof of God and creation,rather than aiming to discount it from the get go.........
but their not looking for God, so why study to prove him, maybe if they find him they may have to give an account of their reckless living, just a thought ,if he even exists.

But there is an underlying hidden agenda for these individuals ,which is means for another thread.

I mean if I am a non theist scientist, and a strong proponent of that position in any way,and I initially favor evolution over creation, is there a greater probability I will devote my life and scientific study to disproving creation first , in my attempt to prove evolution.

Although the bible has extrodinary examples of answers to science and where many scientific discoveries have had their origin, yet, I don't hear too much mention on that side of science. Why is that ?
If science, as you have said, is not comprehensive ,should we not being hearing more or at least equal discussion and study in trying to support creation.


Look at our schools, if not our society in general, a perfect example, they have been allowed to incorporate evolution in text books, not creation, for years,by humanistic, non theist scientists and authority figures who hold such beleifs and who govern such decision making, as if it were fact and proven truth,disallowing creation teaching, why is that? agenda!!!! agenda!! agenda!!
They do so, as dogmatically as devote Christians.
Now, that has the makings of a religious movement more than a harmless study of the universe,called "science" that has a very definte cause to me.

I mean what is the most practical and effective way to introduce and discount God from the get go,than in our school system by teaching ,evolution, which inturn, produces atheism, humanism etc,where men become the center of the universe.
How empowering for kids to come out of school thinking they are the be all end all.
No morals ,no right and wrong ,no absolutes etc,what will you have, savage like children doing animalistic things, by the manner in which they are raised .

I tell you, that is methodical and extremely brilliant and all for the cause to discount God and creation.Will man prevail ???

That is why we see what we see in today's violent and chaotic society, those brilliant leaders think by discounting Christianity and everything that pertains to it, eg: creation,removing of the 10 commandments,morality,preaching righteousness, holiness,abstinence and the like, will be able to support their overall agenda ,but in reality, it is destroying the very moral fibre of our society.
There is a study worthy of investing in, "why are we morally depraved".

It almost sounds like the tract record found in the history of Russia,Germany and other godless .
Time, will give a very vivd description of what removing creationism teaching will do to a society, one that our country was founded on.

I have never heard any mention of creation teaching in school text books, at least until recently ,does'nt that seem bias with an alterior motive , or just me

That is the most subtle and destructive attack and discrimination on creationism than has ever been done, that being humanism !!
Many of those non thiestic scientists, who support and are advocates of this seemingly harmless, noble, scientific community and it's studies, not only hold some form of humanistic position, claiming, it's all for the betterment of our civilization,seem to do so,as if they are from some elite sect of higher learners.
They think their association to science positions them somewhat superior than the average person ,giving them crediability and prestige,but their studies and findings,which, so often are inconclusive and absurd, not only sound more like circular reasoning,but bias,prejustice, unfounded, discriminatory towards the creation account.

The essence of hypocrisy in it's finest moment.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

First: So food allergies stem from God's punishment of Adam and Eve? Does this apply to ailments besides food allergies?

Second: This is an example of special pleading. On the one hand, you gave this in support of the idea that God created all things (and hence peanuts):



Now it seems you're saying that despite this, certain things (e.g. peanut allergies) were not created by God. Which is it? Did God create all things or not?

Hi!

From the perspective of a peanut:

Yes, other ailments besides food allergies stem from the Fall wherein Adam and Eve sinned which brings forth death, thus all ailments, allergies, disease, etc.

When God created everything he said it was, "very good". Sin had not arrived, thus no death. The animals and humans are said to have been vegetarian:

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The curse resulted in the world we live in: Here is just part of it:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (that's death)

Cheers!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi!

From the perspective of a peanut:

Yes, other ailments besides food allergies stem from the Fall wherein Adam and Eve sinned which brings forth death, thus all ailments, allergies, disease, etc.

All aliments, allergies and diseases? I'd be interested if you could describe for me any sort of mechanism by which sin might bring about hereditary conditions. What possible way could sin (i.e. actions or beliefs that fall short of God's expectation, for a quick definition) cause the genetic changes required to bring about Huntington's Disease, for example?

When God created everything he said it was, "very good". Sin had not arrived, thus no death. The animals and humans are said to have been vegetarian:

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

So... somehow animals that we know to day to be carnivorous and incapable of living as herbivores in their present form were vegetarians in the Garden of Eden? Did The Fall somehow give them the ability to digest meat?

How can sin cause enzyme production? I'm lactose intolerant, which means my body doesn't produce enough lactase enzyme on its own to digest milk products; which sins should I commit to get rid of this condition? If I fail to keep the Sabbath as a day of rest or covet my neighbor's house enough, will I someday be able to eat pizza without my pills?

The curse resulted in the world we live in: Here is just part of it:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (that's death)

It sounds like this doesn't support your claim. Previously, you said it was sin, and not God, that was the cause of human ailments. The passage you've quoted from Genesis seems to say that it was God's curse upon humanity (deserved, perhaps, but still be direct action of God) that was the cause of death, disease and suffering.

Again: which is it? Are humanity's ailments the result of God's actions (justifiably in your mind, perhaps) or not? God cursing the Earth certainly sounds like the actions of God, but you say that God isn't responsible for humanity's suffering; this seems contradictory to me.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Hi!

Awww! I'm just a peanut! I don't know how to use that multi-quote thingy yet. Us peanuts just think sin brought forth death. Because of their sin, the ground was cursed, etc. Not by God, but as a result of sin. its just a spiritual reality kinda thing. (the wages of sin is death)

Cheers!

 

[Autodidact]

That's my point ,at least in referring to the thread's topic, " attack on creationism" .
in that science, which not being fully comprehensive, is seemingly relied on by many a skeptic and the like in discounting a young earth, as if it were absolute proof.

There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Ever. Of anything.

What there is is the highest level of certainty possible, based on all the available evidence. That's what science gives us about the age of the earth: 4.56 billion years.
It seems to me, many, not all, non theists who study science,and or observe it,or hold to a position of science that discounts young earth, do so, in much the same way as if it were more a relgion,in hopes it will someday point to and support the evidence for evolution destroying God and creation altogether.

What about all the theists who study science? Science doesn't tell us whether there is a God. It does tell us the age of the earth, around 4.56 billion years. All geologists, whether, atheist, Christian, or Hindu who study the evidence accept this. Now if for some reason knowing the actual age of the earth causes you to lose your belief in God, that's your issue, not science's.

But there is a greater agenda and it will come out one of these days,anyone who studies the humanist manifesto's will see what that agenda is reall yall about.

What does this have to do with science?

If the same effort was invested in using science, which again is not comprehensive,as a means to strongly study a young earth and not have a bias non theist postion intitially, out of the gate,maybe man would discover more proof of God and creation,rather than aiming to discount it from the get go.........
but their not looking for God, so why study to prove him, maybe if they find him they may have to give an account of their reckless living, just a thought ,if he even exists.

God by definition is outside of the scope of science. Science studies the natural; God, if any, is supernatural.
Do you know anything about how geologists figured out the age of the earth? They had no bias, and in fact expected to find evidence supporting a young earth. They were surprised to learn that it doesn't.

I mean if I am a non theist scientist, and a strong proponent of that position in any way,and I initially favor evolution over creation, is there a greater probability I will devote my life and scientific study to disproving creation first , in my attempt to prove evolution.

What if you're a theist scientist? Science doesn't have anything to do with the religious beliefs of the people doing it; it's a method anyone can use.

You seem to be hostile to science. Do you think there's a better way to learn about the natural world?

Although the bible has extrodinary examples of answers to science and where many scientific discoveries have had their origin, yet, I don't hear too much mention on that side of science. Why is that ?

Because the Bible is not science.

If science, as you have said, is not comprehensive ,should we not being hearing more or at least equal discussion and study in trying to support creation.

Why, are you saying that creationism is science?

Look at our schools, if not our society in general, a perfect example, they have been allowed to incorporate evolution in text books, not creation, for years,by humanistic, non theist scientists and authority figures who hold such beleifs and who govern such decision making, as if it were fact and proven truth,disallowing creation teaching, why is that? agenda!!!! agenda!! agenda!!

Evolution is the best and most accepted current scientific knowledge about the origin of species. That's why it's taught as biology. Do you for some reason think they should teach:
(1) Religion as biology?
(2) Hypotheses that have been disproven?
They do so, as dogmatically as devote Christians.

Now, that has the makings of a religious movement more than a harmless study of the universe,called "science" that has a very definte cause to me.

Science and religion are two different things.

I mean what is the most practical and effective way to introduce and discount God from the get go,than in our school system by teaching ,evolution, which inturn, produces atheism, humanism etc,where men become the center of the universe.
How empowering for kids to come out of school thinking they are the be all end all.
No morals ,no right and wrong ,no absolutes etc,what will you have, savage like children doing animalistic things, by the manner in which they are raised .

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about whether there is a God. It also happens to be true. Now, if you think we should teach children lies...

I tell you, that is methodical and extremely brilliant and all for the cause to discount God and creation.Will man prevail ???

If there is a God, the ToE tells us how He created.

That is why we see what we see in today's violent and chaotic society, those brilliant leaders think by discounting Christianity and everything that pertains to it, eg: creation,removing of the 10 commandments,morality,preaching righteousness, holiness,abstinence and the like, will be able to support their overall agenda ,but in reality, it is destroying the very moral fibre of our society.
There is a study worthy of investing in, "why are we morally depraved".

Do Christian countries in fact behave more morally than more secular countries? Have you compared the crime rates? Did you know that the states with the highest proportion of Christians (Texas, Louisiana, etc.) also have the highest crime rates?

Time, will give a very vivd description of what removing creationism teaching will do to a society, one that our country was founded on.

One what?

I have never heard any mention of creation teaching in school text books, at least until recently ,does'nt that seem bias with an alterior motive , or just me

That's because it's religion, not science. Did you realize that the United States has a secular system of government, in which the schools are not allowed to teach any one particular religion?

That is the most subtle and destructive attack and discrimination on creationism than has ever been done, that being humanism !!

Science does not teach humanism; that's philosophy.

Many of those non thiestic scientists, who support and are advocates of this seemingly harmless, noble, scientific community and it's studies, not only hold some form of humanistic position, claiming, it's all for the betterment of our civilization,seem to do so,as if they are from some elite sect of higher learners.
They think their association to science positions them somewhat superior than the average person ,giving them crediability and prestige,but their studies and findings,which, so often are inconclusive and absurd, not only sound more like circular reasoning,but bias,prejustice, unfounded, discriminatory towards the creation account.

I know you wish we would go back to the dark ages, but thank goodness we don't want to. Scientists are: atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and all other religions. I think they have contributed greatly to the betterment of our civilization--you don't? They are an elite group of higher learners, and they spent years getting there. A Ph.d in a hard science is not an easy thing to attain. They have credibility because of their strong track record of accomplishment, which you disdain.

My suggestion for you would be to stop typing right now, and use a quill pen to write out your thoughts on vellum. Make lots of copies. Then get on your horse and ride around to everyone's house and deliver them. Then go home, build a fire, and light a candle. Then science won't bother you.

Please present an instance of circular in biology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Awww! I'm just a peanut! I don't know how to use that multi-quote thingy yet. Us peanuts just think sin brought forth death. Because of their sin, the ground was cursed, etc. Not by God, but as a result of sin. its just a spiritual reality kinda thing. (the wages of sin is death)

So... still no reason besides religous faith to consider a literal interpretation of Genesis even possible, let alone plausible or likely.

And I still don't get my pizza. All that sinning for nothing.