So...how were things "created"?

[Scotracer]

Since there's a certain sector of religious faith that believes everything was "created" rather than forming over billions of years due to natural processes, I feel the need to pose a question:

How were these things created?

Science is used to increase the sum of knowledge of mankind. Simply stating something was created doesn't really help, does it? So, please tell me and everyone else just how these things were created.

[Ami]

Does evolution account for why most humans enjoy the azure blue sky?

I propose it offers a certain relief agains viewing storm clouds.

Maybe, mabe not. I propose that upbringing or location accounts for it. I for one do not enjoy a blue sky, as it means a scorching sun, me getting sweaty. I much prefer a grey cloudy day, it's more relaxing and relieving against the heat. Plus if it rains you get water, which we all need.

Depends where you live though. Since the UK, for example, tends to be wet most of the year, I'd expect it's locals to enjoy blue cloudless days since they don't get them often. Likewise I'd also expect someone who lived in the desert to be happy to see so much as a spot of rain.

Alan Clarke wrote:

People who hated blue were miserable all the time and females weren't attracted to miserable people so they were sexually selected out.

I prefer cloudy days, it does not mean I do not like the colour blue.

If a person were sickened by a peacocks beautiful tail feathers, I would doubt that persons mental health. Seriously, wouldn't you suspect that something was seriously wrong? Surely this man's system for interpreting his existence, environment, and development would be upside down.

I do not doubt a person's mental health simply because they're bothered by a bunch of feathers.

A lot of people get bothered by different things, and while it may or may not be considered a weakness, it doesn't indicate that they are mentally unhealthy enough to not believe the factuality of their statements. Otherwise whatever meager fear or discomfort you might have over whatever object may indicate you are an untrustworthy person to get facts from.

I'd rather it be a big giant hooter. I got my old lady to help count the monthly - ahem - periods.

LOL

Edit;

Pretty much so. One of God's magic phrases was "Let there be light" and there was light. He is somehow able to generate things from nothing. He just waved his magic wand.

It is possible for things to begin existing from nothingess. Matter and anti-matter is known to pop into existence and detroy each other the next instant. I forget if this is localised to the vicinity of a black hole or not, though.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 4 Post 35:

Does evolution account for why most humans enjoy the azure blue sky?

I propose it offers a certain relief against viewing storm clouds.

Maybe, mabe not. I propose that upbringing or location accounts for it. I for one do not enjoy a blue sky, as it means a scorching sun, me getting sweaty. I much prefer a grey cloudy day, it's more relaxing and relieving against the heat. Plus if it rains you get water, which we all need.

Plenty, plenty fair. I made sure to "propose" a response of how it may be to an evolutionary advantage. My attempt was to offer a reasonable and logical answer to the question.

Depends where you live though. Since the UK, for example, tends to be wet most of the year, I'd expect it's locals to enjoy blue cloudless days since they don't get them often. Likewise I'd also expect someone who lived in the desert to be happy to see so much as a spot of rain.

And we see many from the "Old Countries" settled in the US in very similar geographic/weather patterned locations when coming to the New World.

We tend to get comfortable with certain patterns, and the idea of blue skies, as a pattern, as comfort can be reasonably assumed to be a product of who we are, rather than some divine being.

I would dare say you'd be more comfortable in surroundings you consider familiar.

[Alan Clarke]

THE LAW OF SIN & DEATH

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Alan Clarke wrote: SIN was traced to Adam.

How does that work? It has been shown that the idea that acquired traits are inheritable (Lamarkism [sic]) is false. How could we inherit the sinfulness of our ancestors?

There is a mechanism in the human body that you are overlooking which carries this inheritable disease. How are you missing it? Perhaps you are familiar with the complexity of modeling air turbulence. The number of variables can be so great, that even a supercomputer struggles. When you hear the sound of wind, do you know exactly where that particular gust of wind was birthed? This is an example of having one sense that detects the phenomena, but your other abilities fail to locate its origin. By the same token, you know that you were born from your mother, but you dont know your ULTIMATE origin. You know your ultimate destination (death), but you dont know now nor will know then, the exact cause for it. Ive seen people try to articulate the cause at various stages of the decline leading to death, but the interpretations are so varied that many doubt the accuracy or absoluteness of those interpretations. In order for you to determine this, something about you will have to be transformed. You really shouldnt be surprised at this idea because the Earth is full of people extremely desirous of knowing their origin and destination, but many such as yourself have not the faintest idea. Aristotle believed that aphids arose from plant dew, fleas came from decaying matter, mice arose from dirty hay, and crocodiles were from rotting sunken logs. (Wikipedia) Today scientists laugh at these absurdities because they know in actuality mice would have arisen from dirty hay if Aristotle had only waited longer. 2 billion years should do the trick according to the evolutionists timeline.

Time required to validate theory
Spontaneous generation (2 weeks - 1 year)
Mendelian Genetics (7 years) *
Evolution (1 M - 3 B years)

Can you determine which of the above theories would be hard to falsify? Can you understand why the internet is flaming with angry people, including university-trained scientists, who were told that they dont understand how evolution works? The understanding of how it works is not science but a human materialistic philosophy. Insisting that evolution CAN be observed is weak because many changes in a species can be accounted for by mechanisms that already exist in the organisms that allow for variation. It is conceivable that a single pair of genetically-rich cats on Noahs ark could account for all modern-day cats if you allow for natural selection and mutations to REDUCE information to achieve ocelots and the like. I am not a geneticist but I suggest this so you can study the possibility on your own. Why should we call a lion and a tiger two different species if they can interbreed to produce offspring?

Alan Clarke wrote: Sin always results in death without any exceptions.

This is the science forum. Do you have any science to support this assertion?

Website name: Debating Christianity & Religion
Forum name: Science & Religion
Thread name: Sohow were things created?

Notice that the thread name is NOT How did natural processes create everything? Do you see the difference? One is a leading question whereas the other is not. When did you stop beating your wife? In America, asking leading questions has become almost inherent since children are taught very early with this technique. It carries on into adulthood as I have illustrated in your situation, where you ASSUMED the answer was already implied, even though I showed you it wasnt printed anywhere. I have empirical evidence that the origin of these ASSUMPTIONS are passed on at an early age before a child has the ability to critically think for himself. Here is a question from a childrens science magazine called Ask: Which living animal is most like a T. rex: a crocodile, a komodo dragon, or a chicken? (source)

McCulloch, I can really empathize with your position but I think we should review where you are:
1) You dont know where you came from.
2) You dont know how your journeys end will be transacted.
3) You may not know at present where you are going with respect to tomorrow or next year.
4) You dont know where you are now as evidenced by this forum thread that you falsely ASSUMED was limited to natural causes.

Being in a bad position is not all that BAD if you can get out of it. Im speaking from experience since at one time, I mirrored every single one of the above conditions.

Do you have any science to support this assertion? [i.e. SIN causes death]

I would like to address this using something you are familiar with and can appreciate: Evolution theory. Evolution theory stipulates change over time. These changes are so small and extended over such vast periods of time that much controversy has been generated as to whether evolution is happening at all. But since you think it is, lets apply that principle to small increments of what I will call Sin. The term is often ambiguously construed, but so is "evolution" : (i.e. chemical , cosmologic, Darwinian, sociocultural, etc.), so you should feel quite at home. What they all have in common however is change over time. Would you agree in general terms that sin is doing something morally wrong? In order to remove the disambiguation created by controversial situational ethics, would you agree that it is sinful for one to rape a 2-year old girl, then kill and dispose of her body in a lake? Hopefully Im appealing to your rational mind, and hopefully you will agree that even thinking about how one might succeed in carrying out that act should be construed as a sinful action. Thus the idea of sinful thoughts becomes a reality. If we apply the change over time principle to the disambiguated idea of sin, we should be able to empirically derive whether sin is a cause of death. If a man robs a bank and is imprisoned, will not his chances for earning income, marrying and producing children, buying toiletries to care for his body, eating healthy food, developing friends, etc. be lessened? Will not the reduction of friends, money, bodily care, and opportunity reduce longevity? If a person is a glutton and is forced to eat healthier food in prison, would this be a viable argument for saying that sin increases longevity especially when you consider that your new friends will be criminals? Can a society prosper if the population willingly imprisons itself so as to eliminate gluttony while a minority of non-imprisoned citizens supports the prison through tax revenues? If a man commits adultery with another mans wife, will not the avenging husband reduce the probability of increased longevity for the one who sinned? Can you think of any instance where sin is not going to reduce longevity? Keep in mind that you must work with the idea of an open system as I did in my gluttony analogy where people on the outside were negatively affected by the tax burden. Im sure you are comfortable with this stipulation since evolutionists themselves plead for an open system. If a man has a habit of telling white lies to his spouse, wont those seemingly insignificant lies accumulate over time and reduce his spouses trust? Isnt lack of trust a common cause for divorce? One might argue that lawyers benefit from divorce but isnt their gain diminished by those who are ill-affected? Doesnt divorce deplete life savings, increase stress, and turn children into less-functional members of society? Doesnt all of this decrease longevity and support my original argument of the universal consequences of sin? If sins consequences are known to be universal, inescapable, non-changing, and unforgiving, what about the universality of the cause? Does anyone not sin? If we could locate a person with any of the following attributes, that would weaken considerably my claim that sin always results in death. Even if you were to locate an innocent child who had no opportunity to sin, that child would die because he INHERITED sin. Therefore, the original cause is still TRACED to sin.

[mrow] Person # [mcol] Commited sin? [mcol] Current state [row] 1 [col] no [col] dead [row] 2 [col] yes [col] > 1000 years old

To my knowledge, no one currently lives more than about 120 years of age, so only Person #1 is left as an option. Do you know anyone who has never sinned? I think you should really latch on to this concept because it is substantiated almost identically as the theory of evolution: homological/morphological inferences support the idea of evolution vs. deterioration of viability supports the idea of sin. Whats nice about sin (pun not intended) is that we can support it with visual evidences showing that death is hastened when a lot of sin is committed in a short period of time.


John Dillinger is not an isolated or anecdotal case.

Americans have been well-informed by their news media (Fox News in this case) of the correlation between sin and death:
Uday & Qusay

For those who argue that isolating the evidence to one or two individuals is not conclusive:
Bugs Moran Gang

For those who argue that children should never die because they are sinless:
Innocent children

The children depicted in the above link illustrates how sin is inherited from the parent. Even though the parents are seemingly healthy and full of smiles (as the photo shows), they are latent carriers and pass the trait to their children. Sin plagues the entire human race without exception.

Fortunately, There Is A Way Out

John 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

But how will people be exempt from damnation if they are born with the inherited sin trait which forces them to sin even against their own will? (example: alcoholics, wife-beaters, porn addicts, grumpy people, etc., all want to stop but they cant)

1Cor 15:56-57 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


* Between 1856 and 1863, Mendell cultivated and tested some 29,000 pea plants.

[Wyvern]

To my knowledge, no one currently lives more than about 120 years of age, so only Person #1 is left as an option. Do you know anyone who has never sinned? I think you should really latch on to this concept because it is substantiated almost identically as the theory of evolution: homological/morphological inferences support the idea of evolution vs. deterioration of viability supports the idea of sin. Whats nice about sin (pun not intended) is that we can support it with visual evidences showing that death is hastened when a lot of sin is committed in a short period of time.

Three of the biggest killers ever lived to be quite old, Stalin lived to be 75, Mao made it to 83 and Pol Pot lived to be 73. Pol Pot in particular committed very many acts which you would call sinful in the space of only a few years.
All of that is beside the point though, you are drawing a false conclusion.

[Alan Clarke]

Stalin lived to be 75, Mao made it to 83 and Pol Pot lived to be 73.

This is just priceless. I stipulated that you must take the whole open system into account. One rich leader siezes the assets of his people and lives sumptously. This is identical to evolutionists arguing that "hot spots" are local areas of organization that defy entropy. The problem is, you have to account for the 99.999% of the remaining people in Pol Pot's regime who suffered miserably and had their heads cut off. So in this case, a guy who is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY sinful, succeeded in bringing down the whole country. Certain denominations of the existing Cambodian paper currency were declared "unlucky" by Pol Pot and weren't to be backed by the govt. The economy hit bottom the same day the decree went out. "Sin" has consequences that are unfathomable. Evolution theory is based on the exact same failed logic of winning at someone else's expense, thinking that such advancements will build a viable organism and/or society.

My argument still stands: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and innocent victims are all dead because of sin. If all of the above had "sinned less", then fewer would have died prematurely. You must look at the whole system just as one would with thermodynamics. Wyvern argued for isolated individuals and lost. What's worse, all of his argument's "heros" are dead.

[Alan Clarke]

"In fact, Takahashi and her team found little train variance among males in the population they studied."

I guess since there was little difference in the feather displays the females chose using different criteria.

I suppose the artwork on the peacocks feathers just couldnt get any better so evolution stopped happening. There is nothing worse than an artist who over-indulges. The only problem here is that evolution is now endowed with artistic taste. I honestly dont think you understand the variables involved in love, hate, art and music appreciation, etc. Even the word variables sounds foolish when I think of the joy my 5 month-old sons face elicits. Does love in your world consist of staring into a face and thinking (curved lip) + (slightly tilted chin) + (furrowed brow) + (messy hair) + etc. + etc. = 18.0389054236 Yes! I love 18.0389054236!!!! But I dont trust 18.00000666. Perhaps you could suggest a model for a program that could predict which of two songs has a better chance of becoming a Top-10 hit by studying wave harmonics. You could buy out Microsoft with the proceeds. Do you realize your evolution stopped explanation allows you to imagine anything you want and thus end up with a theory consisting of imaginations? Sharks just cant get any better either except for that minor problem of them sinking if they stop swimming. * Coelacanths evidently stopped evolving because they too were perfect except for that inconvenience of not being able to walk on land as they had always dreamed. You read two research studies, rejected all data that hurt your theory, and accepted all data that helped your theory. The Japanese research project was 7 years with more birds involved than previous yet they didnt offer what you were looking for. So in the end, it is not science that you believe, but yourself.

Any feedback on planet wobble?

* Unlike other fish, sharks do not have gas-filled swim bladders, but rather rely on an oil-filled liver for (limited) buoyancy, so they sink when they stop swimming.

[McCulloch]

THE LAW OF SIN & DEATH

I am not quite sure what this image is supposed to convey. It certainly is not a diagram of what we know of human population.

How does that work? It has been shown that the idea that acquired traits are inheritable (Lamarckism) is false. How could we inherit the sinfulness of our ancestors?

There is a mechanism in the human body that you are overlooking which carries this inheritable disease.

So you assert. Without evidence. I agree that there may be some complexities of which we do not currently understand, but since we do not understand them, we cannot confidently speculate on what they might be or how they work.

I am not a geneticist but I suggest this so you can study the possibility on your own.

I do not have the time to get a degree in genetics. Any study that I did could not be in depth and would be susceptible to newbe type errors. I've asked geneticists and they explain it all, coherently and do not agree with your speculations.

Why should we call a lion and a tiger two different species if they can interbreed to produce offspring?

Evolution predicts that the lines between species should not always be clear demarcations.

Alan Clarke wrote: Sin always results in death without any exceptions.

This is the science forum. Do you have any science to support this assertion?

Website name: Debating Christianity & Religion
Forum name: Science & Religion
Thread name: Sohow were things created?

You've done the Religion part. I'm waiting for the science.

McCulloch, I can really empathize with your position but I think we should review where you are:

1. You dont know where you came from.
2. You dont know how your journeys end will be transacted.
3. You may not know at present where you are going with respect to tomorrow or next year.
4. You dont know where you are now as evidenced by this forum thread that you falsely ASSUMED was limited to natural causes.

1. You dont know where you came from either.
2. You dont know how your journeys end will be transacted.
3. You may not know at present where you are going with respect to tomorrow or next year.
4. You answer these issues by reference to unsubstantiated supernatural causes.

Do you have any science to support this assertion? [i.e. SIN causes death]

I would like to address this using something you are familiar with and can appreciate: Evolution theory. Evolution theory stipulates change over time. These changes are so small and extended over such vast periods of time that much controversy has been generated as to whether evolution is happening at all.

There is no controversy among biologists.

But since you think it is, lets apply that principle to small increments of what I will call Sin. The term is often ambiguously construed, but so is "evolution" : (i.e. chemical , cosmologic, Darwinian, sociocultural, etc.), so you should feel quite at home. What they all have in common however is change over time. Would you agree in general terms that sin is doing something morally wrong? In order to remove the disambiguation created by controversial situational ethics, would you agree that it is sinful for one to rape a 2-year old girl, then kill and dispose of her body in a lake? Hopefully Im appealing to your rational mind, and hopefully you will agree that even thinking about how one might succeed in carrying out that act should be construed as a sinful action. Thus the idea of sinful thoughts becomes a reality. If we apply the change over time principle to the disambiguated idea of sin, we should be able to empirically derive whether sin is a cause of death. If a man robs a bank and is imprisoned, will not his chances for earning income, marrying and producing children, buying toiletries to care for his body, eating healthy food, developing friends, etc. be lessened? Will not the reduction of friends, money, bodily care, and opportunity reduce longevity? If a person is a glutton and is forced to eat healthier food in prison, would this be a viable argument for saying that sin increases longevity especially when you consider that your new friends will be criminals? Can a society prosper if the population willingly imprisons itself so as to eliminate gluttony while a minority of non-imprisoned citizens supports the prison through tax revenues? If a man commits adultery with another mans wife, will not the avenging husband reduce the probability of increased longevity for the one who sinned? Can you think of any instance where sin is not going to reduce longevity? Keep in mind that you must work with the idea of an open system as I did in my gluttony analogy where people on the outside were negatively affected by the tax burden. Im sure you are comfortable with this stipulation since evolutionists themselves plead for an open system. If a man has a habit of telling white lies to his spouse, wont those seemingly insignificant lies accumulate over time and reduce his spouses trust? Isnt lack of trust a common cause for divorce? One might argue that lawyers benefit from divorce but isnt their gain diminished by those who are ill-affected? Doesnt divorce deplete life savings, increase stress, and turn children into less-functional members of society? Doesnt all of this decrease longevity and support my original argument of the universal consequences of sin? If sins consequences are known to be universal, inescapable, non-changing, and unforgiving, what about the universality of the cause? Does anyone not sin? If we could locate a person with any of the following attributes, that would weaken considerably my claim that sin always results in death. Even if you were to locate an innocent child who had no opportunity to sin, that child would die because he INHERITED sin. Therefore, the original cause is still TRACED to sin.

But anyone who did not do any of these things will still die. My tomato plant will die, is that inherited from Adam too? You have again asserted, without evidence, that sin is inherited and appeal only to the fact that the mechanism has not been yet discovered. So your position looks a bit like, "We don't have the science yet, but I believe it because the Bible tells me so. "

[mrow]Person #[mcol]Commited sin?[mcol]Current state [row]1 [col]no [col]dead [row]2 [col]yes[col]> 1000 years old

Who is this person 2? [mrow]Current state [mcol]Has not sinned[mcol]Has sinned [mrow]Alive [col color=#eeddff]Very young infants [col color=#eeddff]Most adults still living [mrow]Dead [col color=#eeddff]Aborted fetuses? Those who die very young [col color=#eeddff]Most of those not currently living

To my knowledge, no one currently lives more than about 120 years of age, so only Person #1 is left as an option.

To my knowledge, no one has ever lived beyond 125 years. Jeanne Calment lived to 122.

Do you know anyone who has never sinned?

Yes.

I think you should really latch on to this concept because it is substantiated almost identically as the theory of evolution: homological/morphological inferences support the idea of evolution vs. deterioration of viability supports the idea of sin.

That's a stretch.

Whats nice about sin (pun not intended) is that we can support it with visual evidences showing that death is hastened when a lot of sin is committed in a short period of time.

Death is also hastened by diabetes, various viruses, earthquakes, using asbestos, and lots of other non-sinful events. Yes, you can identify some activities which have been labeled as sin that in many circumstances hastens death, but as Billy Joel noted, "Only the Good Die Young."

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 4 Post 37:

By the same token, you know that you were born from your mother, but you don't know your ULTIMATE origin.

Given the emphasis on ultimate, I'd agree in principle. Otherwise I'd say a fertilized egg.

Does Alan Clarke know this origin?

You know your ultimate destination (death), but you don't know now nor will know then, the exact cause for it....

Lack of oxygen to the brain.

In order for you to determine this, something about you will have to be transformed...

I take that to mean "you must become a believer.

Time required to validate theory
Spontaneous generation (2 weeks - 1 year)
Mendelian Genetics (7 years) *
Evolution (1 M - 3 B years)

Let's add another:

God theories (2 thousand years and counting)

>I'll skip over the attempt to refute the ToE, as it's failure is not evidence for creationist claims.

It is conceivable that a single pair of genetically-rich cats on Noahs ark could account for all modern-day cats if you allow for natural selection and mutations to REDUCE information to achieve ocelots and the like. I am not a geneticist but I suggest this so you can study the possibility on your own.

If, if , if. There's no need to consider genetic material in terms of "information". It is a chemical compound. No more, no less. It reacts in a fashion consistent with known physical laws.

Why should we call a lion and a tiger two different species if they can interbreed to produce offspring?

Various reasons. Among them the fact they rarely, to never interbreed in the wild. This interbreeding is quite difficult when one lives in Africa and the other in Asia.

This is the science forum. Do you have any science to support this assertion?

e"]
Notice that the thread name is NOT "How did natural processes create everything?" Do you see the difference?

Yes, you have no science.

Here is a question from a children's science magazine called "Ask": "Which living animal is most like a T. rex: a crocodile, a komodo dragon, or a chicken?"

I'm going with chicken, since there's science to support my choice.

1) You don't know where you came from.
2) You don't know how your journey's end will be transacted.
3) You may not know at present where you are going with respect to tomorrow or next year.
4) You don't know where you are now as evidenced by this forum thread that you falsely "ASSUMED" was limited to natural causes.

I think we're gonna get a god in the gaps for 1-3. On #4 I sense a moderator's ruling coming on.

Would you agree in general terms that "sin" is doing something morally wrong?

We must, until such time it can be shown a given god doesn't like a given act. Of course what one considers sin another may consider an otherwise normal human act.

In order to remove the disambiguation created by controversial situational ethics, would you agree that it is sinful for one to rape a 2-year old girl, then kill and dispose of her body in a lake?

That is "situational ethics".
It was once custom to kill and rape folks in conquered lands.

Thus the idea of "sinful thoughts" becomes a reality.

No it doesn't, you've yet to show your favored God has an opinion on the matter.

If a person is a glutton and is forced to eat healthier food in prison, would this be a viable argument for saying that sin increases longevity especially when you consider that your "new friends" will be criminals?

Only in the most vague of senses. What one considers "sin" others consider "a night with the hot twins". You continue to fail to show your preferred god has an opinion on what constitutes sin, and what your favored god may do to punish such.

Can a society prosper if the population willingly imprisons itself so as to eliminate gluttony while a minority of non-imprisoned citizens supports the prison through tax revenues?

LOL Not in "fat rear end" America. Other, more generally thin nations may be able.

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, will not the avenging husband reduce the probability of increased longevity for the one who "sinned"?

This can be explained in terms of evolutionary theory - some males of some species will jealously guard their mates from procreation with other males. No god can be shown to be involved.

Can you think of any instance where sin is not going to reduce longevity?

When using "sin" as a blanket term for what one doesn't like, I don't see how. When considering "sin" as "something God doesn't like and will punish folks for", I don't see how it can be shown to have any "divine" consequences.

If a man has a habit of telling "white lies" to his spouse, won't those seemingly insignificant lies accumulate over time and reduce his spouses trust?

Not if by the time she runs off he's been able to get some procreating in. Or practice.

Isn't "lack of trust" a common cause for divorce?

Yes. I'd say the most common cause would be "marriage"

Doesn't divorce deplete life savings, increase stress, and turn children into less-functional members of society?

Not for my son. He's a model American, Air Force, recipient of the John Levitow award for leadership, active in his community, and all around great guy.

Doesn't all of this decrease longevity and support my original argument of the universal consequences of "sin"?

Not until we can verify what your favored god considers a "sin".

Otherwise we're left with a bunch of unprovable claims.

If sin's consequences are known to be universal, inescapable, non-changing, and unforgiving, what about the universality of the cause?

That's just it, you've failed to show what your favored god's opinions are on matters of sin.

Does anyone not sin?

Hard to tell when we can't verify God's opinion on sin.

Your argument is chunky with post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacies.

If we could locate a person with any of the following attributes, that would weaken considerably my claim that "sin always results in death."

pheph fallacy.

I'll stop now as I can't help but think the rest of the post continues in the pheph tradition.

Conclusion:

Post hoc ergo procter hoc riddled post, lacking any evidence whatsoever about what the proposed God considers a sin.

[Cathar1950]

Given everything dies that is alive and it has been that way since life formed on this planet it is hard to believe all life dies because of some inherited sin disease.
Also life matures and then ages and dies so it doesn't just start out and start dying; it develops.
All things died before there were humans so humans didn''t bring sin and death into the world.
His post is nothing more then preaching and BS.

[ConfinedIX]

Where does this appearance cease to exist for you? Dawkins seems to base his criteria on whether the thing being considered has any purpose. From our perspective, the Moon is the exact same size as our Sun. Do you see no purpose in this? What are the odds for three massive objects (Sun, Earth, Moon) to assume such improbable positions in lieu of gravity and velocity in addition to one of those objects being a unique living planet? If our planet wasnt spinning the light-dark 24 hour clock wouldnt work and of our planet (at best) would be a death zone. The moon prevents the earth wobbling when it spins. Without the moon, temperatures at the poles & equator would vary so widely that no plant life could survive. Without plants, animals would die. Before the Flood, there is good evidence that we had a 360-day year / 30 day month. Isnt it nice to have a big bright ball in the sky that notifies us of monthly periods via crescents, halves, and full moons?

Considering this and the fact that the Earth seems to be a "hot" spot for possessing the attributes of life, most concentrated information, and highest intelligence, the question arises, Why is it so concentrated on Earth and not elsewhere? Lucky alignment of planets? The numerical odds against such alignments are beginning to reel in my head when I start considering this and the innumerable other conducive requirements (a miniscule number of which I listed above) and wonder if perhaps this probability is less than the good ol amino acids forming a protein by chance.

We perceive that the moon is the same size as the sun due largely in part that the moon is only 238,857 miles from Earth while the Sun is 93,000,000 miles from Earth. So the Sun is 389.254 times at a greater distance away than the moon. Also there are many theories for why the Earth spins. Here is one: Left over momentum from the solar nebula that all of the planets and the Sun formed within. Also, I'd like to point out that our 24 hour clock isn't perfect and neither is our 365 calendar. Every 4 years we have to have an extra day due to that fact that the Earth has an extra 6 hour spin to complete it's full rotation around the Sun, so technically Earth's rotation round the sun is 365.25 days.

Also, I would like to point out that there are certain bacteria that thrive in the coldest regions of Earth and that is why many scientists believe that there could be microscopic life under the frozen plate of ice on Jupiter's moon Europa. Within the next 7 years it could be confirmed that life exists or does not exist within one moon in our own Solar System.