So you refute all science? Because nothing spiritually involved is explained by any science, therefore you deny every field that cannot explain the supernatural. Maybe Evolution is notI understand from my friends that advocate evolution that the main vehicle for change is mutation.
And a combination of mutation and natural selection will make a given change more prevalent until sufficient changes result in a new species.
However, we are more than physical. We have an immortal soul.
And this is something that differentiates us from every other species on the planet.
Evolution would seem to fall short in explaining this.
Of course, if we are to only consider the physical world, and ignore the other aspects, then we have something that explains much. And doesn’t explain much.
But I find it difficult to ignore reality.
Can you actually address the issue he brought up?Sigh…
More accusation. With no basis in fact.
In order for evolution to work, and explain humans, we have to pretend there is no soul.So you refute all science? Because nothing spiritually involved is explained by any science, therefore you deny every field that cannot explain the supernatural. Maybe Evolution is not
meant to explain the soul, maybe that’s God’s area, while everywhere else God established
natural laws, made things work his way, ever think of that?
Was my original query answered?Can you actually address the issue he brought up?
Farsight001 gave you links. Did you look at them?
If you did, what did you think? Do you agree? Do
you disagree? Why?
Respond appropriately.
Says who? If I showed you a glass of water and described only the making of theIn order for evolution to work, and explain humans, we have to pretend there is no soul.
But Creationists still say the Big Bang Theory is atheistic, refuse to accept that the theory simply makes no comments on God instead of denying him. Weak argument.The Big Bang theory does not necessitate a denial of the soul…
Again, where does science DENY the soul. I want you to show me where the entireIn fact, it seems unique to evolution that we have to be in active denial of the soul to make the theory work.
Bring it up again.Was my original query answered?
I may have missed it.
I brought it up a few times.Bring it up again.
If you wish to describe a glass of water, but leave out the water, you fail to describe the glass of water.Says who? If I showed you a glass of water and described only the making of the
glass cup, am I excluding the existence of the water? I don’t appreciate the accu-
sation. Evolution talks only about the development of physical biologic organisms,
but it does not make any claims on the soul. That is your imposing on the theory.
My argument does not stand upon what creationists believe.But Creationists still say the Big Bang Theory is atheistic, refuse to accept that the theory simply makes no comments on God instead of denying him. Weak argument.
Why should I show anything about the scientific community?Again, where does science DENY the soul. I want you to show me where the entire
scientific community completely rules out the existence of the soul.
Indeed. But we are not wholly of the physical world.That’s not what
Science goes into, matters of God, the soul, spirituality, etc. Science explores the
physical world, makes no comment for or against religious matters, no matter how
much you want to say otherwise.
I failed to describe the water part, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong about the glass cup.If you wish to describe a glass of water, but leave out the water, you fail to describe the glass of water.
Excludes from discussion, yes, but it doesn’t deny the soul, whichThe theory actually does. It lays claim that all we are is the product of natural selection and mutation. This alone excludes the soul. The immortal soul simply does not fit into mutation or natural selection.
One has to ignore this aspect of humanity to fit us into evolutionary theory.
I’m glad you finally stated your position. Still ambiguous, but nowMy argument does not stand upon what creationists believe.
Apparently I am not one.
Does the theory say that the soul doesn’t exist or does it not discussWhy should I show anything about the scientific community?
I have the theory and what it says.
We are not wholly of the physical world, AMEN. Evolution doesn’t fail any more thanIndeed. But we are not wholly of the physical world.
Perhaps evolution is falling flat because it is stepping into an area science simply cannot cover.
Many would do well to remember this.Science and religion are not opposites. Religion tells us why, and science - as much as it can- tells us how.
It describes physical parts.I failed to describe the water part, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong about the glass cup.
In much the same way, evolution can’t nor is meant to describe the soul, but it doesn’t
fail in describing the physical part of humans. You beg to differ?
Is a human being a human being without the immortal soul?Excludes from discussion, yes, but it doesn’t deny the soul, which
you seem to be implying. Just as the water has nothing to do with
the formation and production of the glass cup. We’re talking about
two different things. The soul doesn’t describe the body, nor does
the body describe the soul. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
The Big Bang does not describe God. But then I do not have to deny the spiritual for it to work either.I’m glad you finally stated your position. Still ambiguous, but now
I have a better idea of where you stand. But still, what about the
Big Bang theory. It doesn’t say God did it. It describes a cosmos
which exploded into being from nothing, no mention of God. Why
is that more or less logical than evolution?
No, I deny evolution for many things, but the one that stands out most is that we have to define ourselves without the immortal soul in order for the theory to hold water.Does the theory say that the soul doesn’t exist or does it not discuss
it? You hold the opinion, so it seems, that evolution is wrong because
it doesn’t explain the soul. You ought to know what the scientific com-
munity says about evolution, how it represents evolution, because you
still insist that evolution denies the soul which it doesn’t.
No, I have not.By the way, have you told me what a theory is yet?
Evolution does not purport to describe the atom.We are not wholly of the physical world, AMEN. Evolution doesn’t fail any more than
the fails to explain the atom. So do you still deny evolution in light of this information?
But that doesn’t make the physical part wrong, does it? Is evolution wrong becauseIt describes physical parts.
But we are not just physical parts.
That is why I brought in the water when you were talking about the glass.
You can describe the glass. But if the product you are describing is really a glass full of water, you have left out an important part.
If we are to describe ourselves in just physical terms, we have left out important parts.
No, without the soul, the human is just anotherIs a human being a human being without the immortal soul?
Many people say that the Big Bang Theory denies God’s part inThe Big Bang does not describe God. But then I do not have to deny the spiritual for it to work either.
Where though does Evolution DEMAND that you deny the soul? Again, whyNo, I deny evolution for many things, but the one that stands out most is that we have to define ourselves without the immortal soul in order for the theory to hold water.
That is not the scientific definition of Theory (Scientific Theory). In science,No, I have not.
At it’s most basic, It is an idea used to describe something.
It is generally thought to be true, but has not been (or simply cannot be) proven.
YOU purport that Evolution says that the human being is physical alone and doesn’t haveEvolution does not purport to describe the atom.
It does purport to describe human beings.
Baloney. But you might want to consider stopping on digging a bigger hole. Anti-science? Wow.Evolution IS the truth. I’ve even told you where to look for proof of it in this very thread. Thus, rejection of evolution IS, BY DEFINITION, anti-science.
Quite true. That’s the goal. Chemistry is god.God is.
Too often those that advocate evolution attempt to ignore this.
Such faith is placed into that theory that many believe we would be here without God’s direct intervention.
That is totally incorrect. That is why advocates will never convince those that know the truth.My question for those who reject evolution as a mechanism through which God created all species as we currently know them: Is God a trickster?
When we look back through the fossil record, we see species that are no longer living, and which every test tells us are millions of years old. Taking whales as an example, let’s look at their family history. Some 50 million years ago, we don’t find a single modern whale or dolphin. In fact, we find no large aquatic mammals at all. What we do find are hooved creatures about the size of foxes with some skeletal characteristics that aren’t found anywhere other than in whales. Moving forward in time, these small creatures vanish from the fossil record, and we keep finding new creatures that - as we progress forward in time - have features that are more and more like modern whales until we finally see the first fully-modern whale about 25 million years ago, though that particular species is also gone. What we fail to find at all in the fossil record are examples of any modern species of whale or dolphin (or, for that matter, pig, dog, cat, alligator, fish, insect, ape…).
Given the physical evidence, we’re faced with two choices: Either we are faced with a progression of species whose characteristics change through vast spans of time, or we have a God who chose to deliberately trick those whom Scripture and Tradition tells us He loves: Us.
Remember, science has absolutely nothing to say about the why of something, only the how. Nowhere in biology is there an explanation of the soul, or the reason that God created us. What biology can do is give us some insight into how God created us, and that is a truly majestic process, full of wonders and fantastic creatures. (Sharks the size of a city bus! Two-story-tall birds with mouths full of six-inch razor-sharp daggers! Seemingly insignificant plains apes that are able to make stone tools and control fire at will!)
Science and religion are not opposites. Religion tells us why, and science - as much as it can- tells us how.
Isn’t the correct spelling “bologna”?Baloney. But you might want to consider stopping on digging a bigger hole. Anti-science? Wow.
Peace,
Ed
You’ll have to provide evidence of any decline in American science and engineering.Isn’t the correct spelling “bologna”?
The theories of evolution and natural selection have such a large body of evidence supporting them that they are pretty much considered as reliable as the theory of gravitational attraction.
If your goal is to try to dispute these theories, then you will have to come up with a much better argument than a misspelling of the name of a processed food.
If this poll result is accurate, and 30% of Americans are so ignorant, then we have a better understanding of how the US educational system has failed. The decline of American preeminence in science and engineering is a very sad story. I guess all the new jobs will be as fry cooks at fast food restaurants, and we will buy our high tech items from China and India where the engineers live.
The theory does not purport ‘only the physical part’But that doesn’t make the physical part wrong, does it? Is evolution wrong because
it hasn’t talked about the soul yet? So we are in agreement the Evolution is correct
in talking about the physical part of what is human and that it’s okay that Evolution
doesn’t describe the soul?
To explain the origins of human beings, the soul cannot be ignored.No, without the soul, the human is just another
plain old hominid, but at is not the point Evolu-
tion is meant to make, is it?
Because evolution only works if we ignore the soul.Many people say that the Big Bang Theory denies God’s part in
Creation. If you are so comfortable with the Big Bang Theory, be-
cause it does not force you to deny God, why do you insist that
Evolution must deny the soul.
It defines the human being in only physical terms.Where though does Evolution DEMAND that you deny the soul? Again, why
do God and the Big Bang Theory get along well for you but not Evolution and
the Soul? I told you to give me what the Scientific Community’s official state-
ment is on Evolution and the Soul, you have not done that, why?
I am sure that makes it sound more authoritative, but it still is unproven, and likely is outside of being able to be proven.That is not the scientific definition of Theory (Scientific Theory). In science,
a Theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural
world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
To define a human being, but leave out the soul, is to fail to define a human being.YOU purport that Evolution says that the human being is physical alone and doesn’t have
a soul, but that is not what Evolution says, it only talks about the physical nature of what
a human is, but it makes no comment on the soul. Don’t impose your views of Evolution
on Evolution.