Quote:

In that case, the question itself is unscientific and you shouldn't even bother asking it. You should just assume that that's the way things are now, and not consider it a reflection of our creator.



Remember: the "aging problem" arised from the basic question whether species were designed or evolved and what that means for the life span.

If species are evolved, you would expect a built-in decay - aging - because it limits the lifespan and accelerates evolution.

If species were designed, you would not expect a built-in decay, unless there were a particular reason for it.

This is a typical scientific question: comparing the observations - in this case, a design flaw - with the underlying theory. If the theory can not sufficiently explain the observations, then something is wrong with it.

You tried to explain aging with a moral argument: The very first human displeased his creator and thus became intentionally redesigned with a flaw, as a sort of punishment. As all humans are descendend from the first one, they also inherit the design flaw.

As I pointed out, this explanation is obviously wrong because that design flaw is shared by most species and precedes the first human by more than a billion years. So it can't possibly be caused by God's displeasure in humans. So you have still to come up with a non-moral explanation for aging if you want to save creationism as a serious theory (apart from all the other problems with it).