Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has evolution been proven ?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 106 of 141 (98089)
04-06-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by SoulFire
04-03-2004 2:47 PM


Re: Proven or not.
In reply to my own post, I have come up with a way to prove which of the two is the truth. Ok, here's the plan, we all just believe what we want, live our lives, and die. If evolution is correct, nobody will know b/c we'll be dead and no longer exist. However, if Creationism is true, then everyone will know b/c we'll be face to face with the Creator and He'll be asking us why we should be allowed into Heaven.
This is false. Evolution does not imply the absence of any afterlife, nor does it imply the absence of god, or a creator.
You know. I think I've posted that exact same sentiment in about a quarter of my posts here...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by SoulFire, posted 04-03-2004 2:47 PM SoulFire has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by SoulFire, posted 04-06-2004 11:26 PM Dr Jack has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 107 of 141 (98152)
04-06-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by SoulFire
04-06-2004 12:33 AM


Re: Proven or not.
quote:
There is, however, only one way to be certain that someone has really been spoken to by God, and that is for God to confirm it by revealing Himself to you through the Bible, prayer or circumstances.
Refer to this thread for my explanation to why the bible is not an accurate source of communication with God.
Prayer is a one way communication from me to God, IFF there is a God.
Circumstances can be explained by coincidences, cause and effect, and plane chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by SoulFire, posted 04-06-2004 12:33 AM SoulFire has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2004 4:27 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 115 by SoulFire, posted 04-06-2004 11:29 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 108 of 141 (98154)
04-06-2004 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by coffee_addict
04-06-2004 4:22 PM


Re: Proven or not.
Actually, I find quoting from the BIBLE to be more "logical"(in debate) than attempting to find out how economic interests prevent (even involuntarily)good will from having its magnitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by coffee_addict, posted 04-06-2004 4:22 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by coffee_addict, posted 04-06-2004 5:02 PM Brad McFall has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 109 of 141 (98166)
04-06-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Brad McFall
04-06-2004 4:27 PM


Re: Proven or not.
quote:
Actually, I find quoting from the BIBLE to be more "logical"(in debate) than attempting to find out how economic interests prevent (even involuntarily)good will from having its magnitude.
Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2004 4:27 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2004 7:24 PM coffee_addict has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 110 of 141 (98197)
04-06-2004 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by coffee_addict
04-06-2004 5:02 PM


Proven or not here I come.
There was the "problem" of SoulFire's little &. That certainly works in debate where you linked
quote:
Quoting from the bible is hardly a logical argument. For one thing, anyone could argue that it is a circular argument by using the bible as a reference for such a major logical argument such as the existence of God and his role in life.
Why is it a circular argument? First, we
for if the "circularity" comes from man and not GOD then back to Soul Fire.
I dont bite. If you want that again let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by coffee_addict, posted 04-06-2004 5:02 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by SoulFire, posted 04-06-2004 10:46 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 113 by coffee_addict, posted 04-06-2004 11:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

SoulFire
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 141 (98260)
04-06-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by hitchy
04-06-2004 10:42 AM


Re: Changing signatures!?!
Ok, after changing my signature for the third time, I have decided to go with a statement not dealing directly with scientific facts, so here it is:

"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that you -- your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" -Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by hitchy, posted 04-06-2004 10:42 AM hitchy has not replied

SoulFire
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 141 (98263)
04-06-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Brad McFall
04-06-2004 7:24 PM


Re: Proven or not here I come.
There was the "problem" of SoulFire's little &. That certainly works in debate where you linked
...
for if the "circularity" comes from man and not GOD then back to Soul Fire.
Ummm... I don't quite know what your getting at... no offense but your sentences seem a little incomplete. What's "SoulFire's little &."? Back to me for what?

"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that you -- your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" -Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2004 7:24 PM Brad McFall has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 113 of 141 (98269)
04-06-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Brad McFall
04-06-2004 7:24 PM


Re: Proven or not here I come.
quote:
There was the "problem" of SoulFire's little &. That certainly works in debate where you linked
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting from the bible is hardly a logical argument. For one thing, anyone could argue that it is a circular argument by using the bible as a reference for such a major logical argument such as the existence of God and his role in life.
Why is it a circular argument? First, we
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for if the "circularity" comes from man and not GOD then back to Soul Fire.
I dont bite. If you want that again let me know.
I still don't understand what you mean. In high school, I had to beat my head with a hammer all year long to get a decent grade in creative writing. I can't read between the lines. Please clarify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2004 7:24 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2004 3:21 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 127 by Brad McFall, posted 04-07-2004 7:17 PM coffee_addict has not replied

SoulFire
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 141 (98278)
04-06-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dr Jack
04-06-2004 10:56 AM


Re: Proven or not.
This is false. Evolution does not imply the absence of any afterlife...
If this is true, then would you mind explaining to me how evolution could possibly fit in with any afterlife? In order for there to be an afterlife, we must accept the existence of the human soul, something that is able to live and survive without requiring anything else that all forms of life need, something that affects our thoughts, choises, and emotions. Something like this could not possibly be made of simple matter or energy could it? Please also read my signature.

...nor does it imply the absence of god, or a creator.
I think the kind of god or creator you are refering to here is a mechanical god, that created the earth and then left it on it's own. This is completely contradictory to the entire Bible, which is absolutely filled with examples of God persuing personal, loving relationships with individuals such as Abram, Joseph, David, Solomon, Sampson, and many many more. Please read below where, in reply to Lam's statements against the Bible, I have given some more details and a helpful link.

"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that you -- your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" -Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dr Jack, posted 04-06-2004 10:56 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by 1.61803, posted 04-06-2004 11:49 PM SoulFire has not replied
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2004 3:33 AM SoulFire has replied
 Message 125 by Brad McFall, posted 04-07-2004 7:06 PM SoulFire has replied

SoulFire
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 141 (98279)
04-06-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by coffee_addict
04-06-2004 4:22 PM


Re: Proven or not.
I don't exactly remember the order of translation, but here is how it roughly look: Ancient Hebrew --> Ancient Greek --> Greek --> Hebrew --> Latin --> everything else. The NT went through something similar: Ancient Greek ---> Greek ---> Latin ---> King James ----> everything else.
First of all, the original Bible was not just written in two languages. As a whole, the bible was written:
-by over 40 authors
-in 3 languages
-on 3 continents
-over a span of 1,500 years,
-and covers hundreds of controversial subjects
Though despite all of this, the authors all spoke with agreement; there are no contradictions. From Genesis to Revelation, there is one unfolding story--God's redemption of mankind. I could go into more detail here, but I find this link (where I got the precceding information) to be much more capable of explaining this than I am.

"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that you -- your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" -Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by coffee_addict, posted 04-06-2004 4:22 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by nator, posted 04-07-2004 7:41 AM SoulFire has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 116 of 141 (98288)
04-06-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by SoulFire
04-06-2004 11:26 PM


Re: Proven or not.
Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence. How could the theory of evolution hope to disprove the soul or an afterlife for that matter? ToE is simply science.
I personally do not believe in the soul or an after life as described by the Christian bible. Not because I am a evolution proponant. But because I can not see how your soul once you die could maintain it's separateness, The thing that makes up the Self when you die if there is a Self goes to heaven or hell? And based on your behavior on Earth you are judged by God? And though all this your soul waits for this decision like a trial? That must be believed based on faith. ToE is far removed from the metaphysical . Your own first paragraph sums it up pretty good. Feel free to believe in evolution because the soul and the afterlife concept is based on faith not science. IMO

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by SoulFire, posted 04-06-2004 11:26 PM SoulFire has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 117 of 141 (98334)
04-07-2004 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by coffee_addict
04-06-2004 11:11 PM


I still don't understand what you mean.
I think Brad hates it when I tell people this, but nobody does. Well, that's not entirely true. Some posters apparently find great lucidity in his writing.
I am not one of them. Most people here don't seem to be. Sorry, Brad, but I felt it was important that Lam not feel like he was the only one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by coffee_addict, posted 04-06-2004 11:11 PM coffee_addict has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 118 of 141 (98337)
04-07-2004 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by SoulFire
04-06-2004 11:26 PM


If this is true, then would you mind explaining to me how evolution could possibly fit in with any afterlife?
There's a computer scientist whose name escapes me who predicts that, given enough time, computing power will escalate to the point where it would be possible to exactly model the history of the Earth, including the conciousness of all humans who had ever lived, and reconstruct their identities inside of a massive computer simulation.
At that point, they need never die or suffer because the simulation would be programmed to be the ultimate human paradise. Whatever that is.
Fanciful in the extreme but I bring it up to demonstrate that views of the afterlife need not require anything so tenuous as the soul. If you're really interested in non-supernatural ideas about the afterlife I reccommend the fiction of Iain M. Banks.
Anyway perhaps conciousness creates souls. Who knows? But it's hardly the case that evolution = no souls or afterlife. Given that those things aren't accessable to scientific inquiry by definition, it would be overstepping the bounds of science to use evolution, or any other theory, to try to disprove them. (Though certainly there isn't any evidence that they do exist.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by SoulFire, posted 04-06-2004 11:26 PM SoulFire has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-07-2004 7:19 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 124 by SoulFire, posted 04-07-2004 6:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 141 (98380)
04-07-2004 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by crashfrog
04-07-2004 3:33 AM


The simlation argument
crashfrog writes:
There's a computer scientist whose name escapes me who predicts that, given enough time, computing power will escalate to the point where it would be possible to exactly model the history of the Earth, including the conciousness of all humans who had ever lived, and reconstruct their identities inside of a massive computer simulation.
At that point, they need never die or suffer because the simulation would be programmed to be the ultimate human paradise. Whatever that is.
You're thinking of the physicist Frank Tipler, I believe, who wrote a book, The Physics of Immortality : Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead on this topic. Regarded as a bit of a crank iirc.
More interestingly still, Nick Bostrom, a philosopher has taken these ideas still further. Given:
i) Computing power will increase until it reaches the point where it can simulate worlds which are indistinguishable from the real thing, using vanishingly small computing times;
ii) humanity doesn't wipe itself out before then
I don't find (i) particularly contentious.
If you grant the above assumptions, then in the future there could be several billion simulations of the world running every second which are completely indistinguishable from reality.
Corollary 1: the chances are one to several gazillion against that you're not currently part of one of those simulations. You are almost certainly living in a Matrix-type simulation.
Corollary 2: Time travel is possible. In the sense that you can simulate it perfectly within a computer.
You can find the original paper here:
The Simulation Argument
And just to prove this post is on topic, I'd just like to point out that the ToE does not rule out any of the above.
PE
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-07-2004]

"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." - Emo Philips

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2004 3:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2004 8:10 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 120 of 141 (98382)
04-07-2004 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by SoulFire
04-06-2004 11:29 PM


Re: Proven or not.
quote:
Though despite all of this, the authors all spoke with agreement; there are no contradictions.
Actually, there are numerous contradictions.
For example, in the Matthew, Mark, and Luke crucifiction accounts, the last supper is a Passover meal. In John, however, Jesus is dead before Passover.
Which story is true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by SoulFire, posted 04-06-2004 11:29 PM SoulFire has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by SoulFire, posted 04-07-2004 11:58 PM nator has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024