Does immunity disprove the fall?

Just out of curiosity, where did God link our "doom" to disease?I've always thought that bacteria, etc. were included here:

quote:

---

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

---

It just so happens that diseases like to creep around inside of us. Ken and Barbie Adam and Eve didn't have sex organs until after they were "cursed". That's why they didn't need figleaves. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't see how.All living creatures were created before the supposed "fall", including bacteria. It seems contradictory to suggest that disease was a result of the "fall". That the diseases were already there, in their hosts, before any "doom" was pronounced.As far as we know, Adam and Eve didn't live very long before the supposed "fall". Whether or not they were immune to their tiny inhabitants, they hadn't had much time to get sick and die, so "super-immunity" is just wild specualtion.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That "dominion" would include immunity to any disease-causing creatures. On what do you base that probability calculation? On what do you base that suspicion? That's what I said. As far as we know, they might only have been there hours or days before they were expelled - no time for their internal parasites, etc. to kill them. Therefore, no reason to assume a magical "change" in parasites or bacteria at the "fall".As far as we know, if they had not been expelled from the garden, they would still have been subjected to the same diseases and parasites. For all we know, they might have gained immunity because of the "fall".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You have made it clear that that's what you think, but you haven't said anything to back it up. Tell us why you think they didn't cause diseases before the "fall". It isn't "obvious" at all. Tell us why you think it's obvious. I didn't call it a fact. I said that you can't assume that Adam and Eve didn't have diseases before the "fall". They might have had non-fatal diseases. Or they might have had diseases that didn't manifest themselves - by sheer coincidence - until after the "fall". Then tell us what the reason is. Don't just say "it's obvious". No.

quote:

---

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

---

And that was after Cain and Abel were born and grew up. They could not have been in the garden much more than 100 years, max.

quote:

---

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

---

So the time spent in the garden was less than 15% of his lifetime - the equivalent of less than ten years in today's lifespans. It is entirely possible that Adam and Eve had long-term diseaes that they contracted before the "fall". It may have escaped your notice, but I'm not arguing from the creationist viewpoint. If you'll read some of my posts in other threads, you'll learn that I don't believe for a split second that a "fall" ever occured, or that there has been any "deterioration".I have been trying to say that the fact of disease certainly does not support the fantasy of a "fall". As for immunity "disproving" it, I'm not sure.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

A lot of things weren't mentioned before the "fall". Africa wasn't mentioned. Do you assume that it just popped up out of the ocean after the "fall"?You'll have to do a lot better than say "it wasn't mentioned" to prove it didn't exist. Do you see anywhere in the "fall" story where it says man was to lose any of his dominion over the animals? But we are not assuming the event of the fall. The question is: Does immunity disprove the fall? Exactly. We can't start assuming that there were no diseases before the "fall".Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.Edited by Ringo, : Punktuation.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The logic goes like this:We have disease-causing pathogens today. They inhabit other living organisms, feed off them, etc. That is the default condition.If you claim that benign organisms magically changed into disease-causing pathogens, then you have to produce positive evidence of that change. My position is the negative-that-can't-be-proven position: that things are the same now as they were before the supposed "fall". Just the opposite: I'm going to assume that pink unicorns don't exist until somebody can prove their existence. Similarly, I'm going to assume no fundamental change in the nature of pathogens until somebody can prove that there was a change. We're not talking about "control of the world around them". We're talking about dominion over the animals:

quote:

---

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

---

When they "fell", God told Adam and Eve that they would have to grow their own food. There is no implication of loss of dominion over the animals - including pathogens. No you are not. You are starting from the positive position of a change in pathogen behaviour/"lifestyles". I am saying that there was no change unless you can demonstrate that there was. But you are the one who is suggesting that crackpot supernatural creatures - non-pathenogenic pathenogens - existed before the "fall".That's the equivalent of pink unicorns turning into zebras. We know that zebras exist now, but you are demanding that I produce evidence that they were not pink unicorns before the "fall". All I'm saying is that zebras were zebras before the "fall". I don't see where you have a leg to stand on pull.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

"Sameness" is the default. Show us evidence of a change. You can't assume that. Working for food has nothing to do with the relationship between man and beasts. There were only two people in the world and they might only have been in the garden for five minutes. They might very well have had diseases that weren't mentioned. Lack of "mention" is irrelevant. And that's exactly the same logic as demanding that I produce evidence that zebras were zebras BEFORE the fall. Without evidence to the contrary, default wins.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

There is nothing in your examples (or in Genesis) about a fundamental change in biology.Adam and Eve became farmers instead of gatherers. There hadn't been any childbirth before the "fall", so no possibility of change there. There is no indication of a biological change in serpents. The subjection of women is cultural, not biological. Clothing is cultural, not biological.On the other hand, you are suggesting that bacteria underwent a major "lifestyle" change - from "grazers" to pathogens. You have presented no evidence whatsoever for such a radical biological change. Another unfounded assumption.No obvious beasts have attacked me for food, so it won't be mentioned in my biography. But microbes are constantly attacking me, just as they would have attacked Adam and Eve. Unless they are the obvious cause of my death, they won't be mentioned in my biography either. Nothing obvious about that either. Paradise was rampant with disease. Remember how Adam named smallpox and bubonic plague?Your claim that pathogens are separate from the diseasses they cause is worthless until you can show some evidence that there was a change in them.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

God was there to prevent any unruly behaviour. No "mention" of a change in biology at all. Once again, there can not be a "change" from no childbirth at all to painful childbirth. There can not be an increase in pain without something to compare it to. Thus, your "even if" is meaningless. You keep repeating that, but you haven't shown any practical way that they can be separated. Certainly the diseases were known before their causes were understood. But we have nothing but your assertion that the pathogens magically "changed" as a result of the "fall".Unless there is some evidence that the sun rose in the south before the "fall", we can assume that it rose in the east. Similarly, unless there is some evidence that bacteria, etc. were fundamentally different before the "fall", we can assume that they were very similar to modern bacteria, etc.-------------You have been trying to argue that Adam and Eve didn't need an immune system before the "fall". The more important question is whether or not they had one.According to my line of reasoning, unless there is some evidence that they acquired an immune system as a result of the "fall", we can assume that they already had one.Now, the OP asks:

quote:

---

Adam and Eve most probably didn't have immune systems, at least not initially, since they would have had no use for them. So why would god curse mankind with with disease and then give us a very complex and effective immune system to fight those very diseases?

---

If there was no disease before the "fall", then our immune system is more of a reward than a punishment. But if there was disease before the "fall", and if Adam and Eve did already have immune systems, the "fall" makes more sense as a punishment.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ever read a biography of Picasso or Einstein? Some of them are considerably larger than the first few chapters of Genesis and yet they don't "mention" every mosquito bite. I don't understand why you think a lack of "mention" is so monumentally significant. You must be very young.
I'd say every day of life is a reward, even if it involves a little suffering now and then.I said early on that I wasn't sure if immunity "disproves" the "fall". At least it seems pretty clear that the "fall" doctrine is self-contradictory.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC