Evolutionists don't believe in the existence of the soul or mind because a spiritual substance cannot arise out of evolving matter. What we call the mind, they say, is just the product of physical and chemical changes in the brain: our thought are just a combination of calcium, phosphate, and other chemicals. Therefore, evolutionist believe that matter can think. But if matter can think, we have no control or responsibility for what we think, since we do not control physical or chemical laws. Since we can't say that one combination of chemical reactions is better than another, all thoughts are morally neutral. Whatever it is, is. Morality does not exist. What I believe, is that only a belief in God who created man with a spiritual inner nature can account for human responsibility. Regardless of how loudly evolutionists proclaim there atheism, they live and behave like men and women created in the image of God. "for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Rom. 1:20

Of course some chemical reactions are better than others. Say you have the "chemical reaction" in your brain that makes you go out and kill a member of your clan. The other members of your clan, fearing that the same will happen to them, will either oust you from the clan or kill you, meaning that your genes which make you think that "morally wrong things are OK" are lost.

The fact that early apes and later humans evolved in social groups means thatgenes that make you more likely to cooperate with your social group make you more successful.

How morality has evolved is already fairly well understood.

Evolution is a fact, and even better it's a theory. Sorry.

Would you agree with me on this that the reason evolution is still believed regardless of evidence to the contrary. Secondly, if you believe n evolution you have to admit that we hit a cosmos jackpot

would you agree with me on this that the reason evolution is still believed regardless of evidence to the contrary.

What? This isn't even a sentence, I don't know what you're trying to say here. There is no evidence to the contrary. Sorry.


secondly, if you beleive n evolution you have to admit that we hit a cosmos jackpot

I don't need to admit to anything. Life could be very common - we don't have the evidence yet.

Even if life WAS very rare, which you are assuming, then you have a basic misunderstanding of statistics. VERY rare things happen EVERY DAY.
Take a deck of cards, shuffle them, then deal the cards in a row in front of you. What's the probability of you having just dealt those cards in exactly the order you just did?
It's 1 in 52*51*50*49*... *2*1.

That's roughly (rounding down) 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

But you just did it, first try. Wow, you're good. Maybe you're God? Or maybe it's just statistics.

evolutionists dont believe in the existence of the soul or mind because a spiritual substance cannot arise out of evolving matter.

Capuchin gave some excellent answers.

However your initial premise is wrong before you even get into the evolutionism is wrong debate. I know evolutionist who are spiritual and believe in souls. I even know evolutionists who are Christians. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Believing in evolution does not exclude someone in believing in other things.

Weird, he posts this in Other Science and quotes the bible. :rolleyes:

Of course some chemical reactions are better than others. Say you have the "chemical reaction" in your brain that makes you go out and kill a member of yoru clan. The other members of yoru clan, fearing that the same will happen to them, will either oust you from the clan or kill you, meaning that your genes which make you think that "morally wrong things are OK" are lost.

The fact that early apes and later humans evolved in social groups means thatgenes that make you more likely to cooperate with your social group make you more successful.

How morality has evolved is already fairly well understood.

Evolution is a fact, and even better it's a theory. Sorry.

well I believe in varieties different dogs and cats and such small changes that have an result of the same thing dog=dog.we can observe this we cannot observe dog becoming anything else but that.. a dog. Some scientists use micro-evolution as a way of "proving" macro-evolution.

If we evolved, we do not have a soul , since we are only blobs of cells that came together over millions of years. I mean, at what point would God insert a soul? When we were just goo? A while later?

We are however self aware, so if there is no soul and all we are is physical, then thinking along this line of thought, our minds must have a particular arrangement of neurons to produce our indivual selfawareness. I will say 5 percent of our neurons as a figure... ok, we have a finite arrangement of neurons, each of ours configured specifically for our own selfawareness...

OK, we die and so to does our arrangement of neurons.. however newborns keep getting produced and abra cadabra one of them has ended up with the configuration of neurons that made up yourself awareness... you open your eyes and you know your alive without memories of course, just the knowing you exist part.. if you are following me still congrats.. so now we see an afterlife without memory (evolution) or one with (God made) is coming, depends which view is correct evolution or made by God.

well what evidence is there to suggest no soul?(none) what evidence to suggest a soul? Lots Real-life case of demon possession documented (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835) this is the newest exorcism documented. I thought this was interesting... now there are near death experiences by the boat full, here are a few People see verified events while out-of-body (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html)

all sorts of other than the physical mysteries are found on earth... if we were only physical then there would not be so much evidence out there for the opposite...

obviously not all you hear on paranormal things is true, but if even 1 percent is true then you have a large amount of evidence , heck only 1 needs to be legit.. lol...

I have to go by what I know has the most evidence, that there is a soul and that there is a God.Just because evolutionists THINK they know how things were made, this somehow negates a maker?

anyone believe in ghosts? Evolution could not believe in it,it can not be inline with any supernatural events.

Even if life WAS very rare, which you are assuming, then you have a basic misunderstanding of statistics. VERY rare things happen EVERY DAY.
Take a deck of cards, shuffle them, then deal the cards in a row in front of you. What's the probability of you having just dealt those cards in exactly the order you just did?
It's 1 in 52*51*50*49*... *2*1.

That's roughly (rounding down) 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

But you just did it, first try. Wow, you're good. Maybe you're God? Or maybe it's just statistics.[/QUOTE]

this card example is way too simplistic to even be compared to the odds of life existing..
there are way way too many things that needed to be just right for life to exist.
it is not like just one improbable thing happened and here we are.. it was many upon many.

so you cannot use a card example on all these individually,because they all build together to allow life to exist in a manner consistent with a plan... life was made to happen.

this card example is way too simplistic to even be compared to the odds of life existing..
there are way way too many things that needed to be just right for life to exist.
it is not like just one improbable thing happened and here we are.. it was many upon many.

so you cannot use a card example on all these individually,because they all build together to allow life to exist in a manner consistent with a plan... life was made to happen.

You missed the point of the example.

well I believe in varities different dogs and cats and such small changes that have an end result of the same thing dog=dog.we can observe this we cannot observe dog becoming anything else but that.. a dog. some scientists use micro-evolution as a way of "proving" macro-evolution.

These are different breeds, not different species, they are still canis lupus familiaris, so you are right, they have just "microevolved", mostly through human selection.
You have to realise that defining what a species is is very tricky. A simple definition is when a population has evolved so far as to no longer be able to breed with the species they evolved from, then that is a new species. Some biologists prefer other definitions.

I suggest you read this page:
Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

It talks at length about how we define species, and how we observe speciation, and then it shows evidence for many observed instances of speciation, i.e. "macro-evolution".


If we evolved, we do not have a soul , since we are only blobs of cells that came together over millions of years. I mean, at what point would God insert a soul? when we were just goo? a while later?

I'm going to talk about my beliefs from now on, because many "evolutionists" do not agree with you that there is not a soul. I believe that we have the illusion of a soul given by the way our mind works.


We are however self aware, so if there is no soul and all we are is physical, then thinking along this line of thought, our minds must have a particular arrangement of neurons to produce our indivual selfawareness. I will say 5 percent of our neurons as a figure...ok, we have a finite arangement of neurons, each of ours configured specifically for our own selfawareness...

I would agree with that. People who have had parts of their brains removed have lost their self-awareness. Also, other animals have shown evidence of exhibiting self-awareness.


ok, we die and so to does our arrangement of neurons..however newborns keep getting produced and abra cadabra one of them has ended up with the configuration of neurons that made up your self awareness...you open your eyes and you know your alive without memories ofcourse, just the knowing you exist part.. if you are following me still congrats.. so now we see an afterlife without memory (evolution) or one with (God made) is coming, depends which view is correct evolution or made by God.

Newborns do not have self-awareness, they develop it later in life. The brain is still forming connections and then pruning the ones that work properly during early life. So I don't know what you are suggesting, does god only give children a soul after a certain time?


well what evidence is there to suggest no soul?(none) what evidence to suggest a soul? lots Real-life case of demon possession documented (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835) this is the newest exorcism documented. I thought this was interesting ...now there are near death experiences by the boat full, here are a few People see verified events while out-of-body (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html)

I don't see any evidence to suggest that out of body events are not just hallucinations caused by coming close to death. The brain would certainly malfunction under such conditions, so I think it's more prudent to suggest such things are hallucinatory in nature. However it seems like there might be some interesting evidence. More research should be done. I'm not sure how demonic possession is evidence for a soul. But that crazy lady should totally apply for the JREF 1 million dollar prize.


all sorts of other than the physical mysteries are found on earth...if we were only physical then there would not be so much evidence out there for the opposite...

Such as? There are many things we cannot yet explain, but that doesn't meant that they're not physical.


obviously not all you hear on paranormal things is true, but if even 1 percent is true then you have a large amount of evidence , heck only 1 needs to be legit.. lol...

And if none of them are?


I have to go by what I know has the most evidence, that there is a soul and that there is a God.Just because evolutionists THINK they know how things were made, this somehow negates a maker?

Evolution does not negate a belief in God. There is absolutely no conflict between a belief in God and a belief in evolution.


anyone believe in ghosts? evolution could not believe in it,it can not be inline with any supernatural events.

Okay..

Newborns do not have self-awareness, they develop it later in life. The brain is still forming connections and then pruning the ones that work properly during early life. So I don't know what you are suggesting, does god only give children a soul after a certain time?

What I mean is eventually over time a person will end up with a neuron configuration that would equal a selfawareness configuration of a person who had died.

"I don't see any evidence to suggest that out of body events are not just hallucinations caused by coming close to death."

A blind lady in her near death experience was able to see in detail all the equipment in the room and all the medical equipment being used to bring her back.

"The brain would certainly malfunction under such conditions, so I think it's more prudent to suggest such things are hallucinatory in nature. However it seems like there might be some interesting evidence. More research should be done. I'm not sure how demonic possession is evidence for a soul. But that crazy lady should totally apply for the JREF 1 million dollar prize."

The crazy lady is documented as having esp.. books were flying off the shelf and she even levitated off the floor.

"Such as? There are many things we cannot yet explain, but that doesn't meant that they're not physical."

Such as medical miracles of healing but of course because a physical thing took place like cancer being cured without treatment and things of that nature. Evidence that adds up.


"And if none of them are?"

I do believe that of all the cases out there, none would be true,the problem is what if most were true? Then it doesn't matter anyway they will all be swept aside, because it does not fit into the scientific package.

A blind lady in her near death experience was able to see in detail all the equipment in the room and all the medical equipment being used to bring her back. .......

the crazy lady is documented as having esp..books were flying off the shelf and she even levitated off the floor.

Who are these people you speak of?

Who are these people you speak of?

Real-life case of demon possession documented (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835)

People see verified events while out-of-body (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html)

Real-life case of demon possession documented (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835)

People see verified events while out-of-body (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html)

So... "an american woman" and "an elderly woman"?

So... "an american woman" and "an elderly woman"?

The demon possessed woman, her name of course is kept anonymous understandably so lots of whackys out there would probably kill her lol..

As for the other link I wondered why not give names but I was in the middle of typing and pulled the link out as an example, I guess it was not a good example lol...

The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY - The Newspaper for the Heartland of New York - Bolt leads to key moment (http://www.thedailystar.com/local/local_story_023040035.html) this is from a local New York news paper and the persons name is in it... lol

evolutionists dont believe in the existence of the soul...

Your statement couldn't be more wrong. Atheists don't believe in a soul (at least ones I know) but there are 'evolutionists' who are fully believing and faithful members of their religions - including fundamentalist Christians.

If we evolved, we do not have a soul , since we are only blobs of cells that came together over millions of years. I mean, at what point would God insert a soul? When we were just goo? A while later?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Even religious scholars cannot agree just when a soul is 'inserted.' If only humans have souls, then God would 'insert' them once we evolved into humans...



anyone believe in ghosts? Evolution could not believe in it,it can not be inline with any supernatural events.

Again, you are equating evolutionists with humanists &/or atheists. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about ghosts because such paranormal phenomena are outside their purview.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Even religious scholars cannot agree just when a soul is 'inserted.' If only humans have souls, then God would 'insert' them once we evolved into humans....

religious scholars, if they believe the bible, Christ, he was placed in the womb from the start.. Job was formed in the womb "you have formed me from the womb" so it seems we have a soul from the start..


Again, you are equating evolutionists with humanists &/or atheists. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about ghosts because such paranormal phenomena are outside their purview.

No, actually I believe there are plenty evolutionists that believe in ghosts and the paranormal,

However thinking about where an evolutionary belief would logically lead then I do not see a point to need a soul, if we are already in the process of being made through slow changes life and death and life again with changes till presto here we are.. OK now here is your soul? If I am wrong in this line of thought, then why is it that some of the top Evolutionists are atheists? Stephen Jay Gould
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett

Frank Zindler said,

"The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity".

If you are an atheist, the only real conclusion is evolution.. we popped in from nothing and slow changes, till we are here.. really the most logical conclusion if there is no God.

Do you believe Atheists are not in control of evolution?

They are trying to solve how from nothing the parts came into existence without a creator. If they believed in a creator then there would be no need for all the effort to find out how, would there?

No, actually I believe there are plenty evolutionists that believe in ghosts and the paranormal,

I didn't say there weren't any, I just said that evolution and ghosts are entirely different fields of study.


however thinking about where an evolutionary belief would logically lead then I do not see a point to need a soul... if I am wrong in this line of thought, then why is it that some of the top Evolutionists are atheists? Stephen Jay Gould
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett

If you are an atheist, the only real conclusion is evolution.. we popped in from nothing and slow changes, till we are here.. really the most logical conclusion if there is no God.


I repeat, just because there are evolutionists who are atheists, doesn't mean all are. The belief in a soul is tied mostly to religion, and since there are fundamentalist Christians who accept that evolution, even macro-evo, is a reality, then there are some evolutionists who believe in a soul.


[/QUOTE]do you believe Atheists are not in control of evolution? [/QUOTE]

NO. I know atheists are not in 'control' of evolution. It is a scientific area of study. No one 'controls' it.

I didn't say there weren't any, I just said that evolution and ghosts are entirely different fields of study.



I repeat, just because there are evolutionists who are atheists, doesn't mean all are. The belief in a soul is tied mostly to religion, and since there are fundamentalist Christians who accept that evolution, even macro-evo, is a reality, then there are some evolutionists who believe in a soul.

I understand your point but I will state here that this type of belief system is not allowed in evolution it would be called intelligent design by default and there is a huge "war" going on to try to allow this in schools and pure evolutionists will not allow it, why? in the theory of evolution no God is allowed, making it be more of an atheistic movement rather than search for the truth.

NO. I know atheists are not in 'control' of evolution. It is a scientific area of study. No one 'controls' it.
OK lol what I meant by control..

what would you call a group of scientists that are at the top and are against any other view point and not letting any other articles in, peer reviewed or other wise that may contradict the theory or put the God equation into it? And if you say it is not happening, I will provide you with plenty of references from sources that are to be believed.. here is one of many links I can show you where people are being stopped from talking about any other view

RichardSternberg.org | Smithsonian Controversy (http://www.richardsternberg.org/smithsonian.php) this is control.

Ok, let them think of what they believe but if you are convinced that God is behind life, then you're free to do so. Then, according to His Word, you'll also learn that the mind and soul really exist, as you yourself mentioned earlier.

evolutionists dont believe in the existence of the soul or mind because a spiritual substance cannot arise out of evolving matter. what we call the mind, they say, is just the product of physical and chemical changes in the brain: our thought are just a combination of of calcium, phosphate, and other chemicals. therefore, evolutionist beleive that matter can think. but if matter can think, we have no control or responsibility for what we think, since we do not control physical or chemical laws. since we can't say that one combination of chemical reactions is better than another, all thoughts are morally neutral. whatever it is, is. morality does not exist. what i beleive, is that only a belief in God who created man with a spiritual inner nature can account for human responsibility. regardless of how loudly evolutionists proclaim there atheism, they live and behave like men and women created in the image of God. "for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Rom. 1:20

Yes but for some reason some evolutionists want to believe that you can believe in evolution and a soul (which is OK by me) ,whatever they want, but since the theory of evolution has been built up on these small changes over time happening without God and are against anything that has to do with God in involved, made by God,guided by God IE.. intelligent design, then a pure evolutionist should not believe in a God or they are not in the "spirit" of the theory, they are in line with intelligent design and should therefore say they believe in this ,

I believe that we have the ability to think and reason and yes chemical responses are manipulated by us because of the soul or bare minimum we were programmed with an ability of learning but again intelligence was used, but I do not believe this, what makes the most sense to me is we have a soul and it influences our thoughts "chemicals" much like miracle healings that are and have been documented by medical science, how a force acts on the cells to mediate supernatural healing.. can matter also learn from its mistakes and change accordingly? Not without an overseer guiding the changes, like a programmer changing the flaws in his program which is what the soul may do...

Still this line of reasoning is not proof for the pure evolutionist to believe, neither are all the cases of paranormal.. psychic phenomena,near death experiences, ghosts, miracle healing none of it will convince them.

Pure evolutionist= evolved without God
intelligent design= evolved with Gods help

Pure evolutionist= evolved without God
intelligent design= evolved with Gods help

What a silly thing to say. You can believe that god gave the first spark of life, and that evolution has done the work from there. That's not intelligent design at all.

He started evolution and just left it to run. That doesn't conflict at all.

What a silly thing to say. You can believe that god gave the first spark of life, and that evolution has done the work from there. That's not intelligent design at all.

He started evolution and just left it to run. That doesn't conflict at all.

OK then why is it that you never hear these main stream evolutionists say God gave the spark and it went from there? Why is this not taught in schools and there are protests about the mere mention of God in the evolution mix? It really seems that they want there to be no God and are trying to push this in schools.

If god gave the first spark of life then he must have programmed into what he gave the spark of life to ,to become what we are today, humans, is that really that much different than guided evolution? He designed it to work out this way.

ok then why is it that you never hear these main stream evolutionists say God gave the spark and it went from there? why is this not taught in schools and there are protests about the mere mention of God in the evolution mix?? It really seems that they want there to be no God and are trying to push this in schools.

If god gave the first spark of life then he must have programmed into what he gave the spark of life to ,to become what we are today, humans, is that really that much different than guided evolution? he designed it to work out this way.

There's no evidence for God. God is not testable. God is not science.

I don't quite understand your second point. Humans use evolutionary algorithms to design all kinds of things. They never know what design comes out at the end. They just write the code.

There's no evidence for God. God is not science.

I don't quite understand your second point. Humans use evolutionary algorithms to design all kinds of things. They never know what design comes out at the end. They just write the code.

The way I see it, there is no evidence that there is not a God and that without any evidence whatsoever they removed God as the start of everything ,they could've easily left him as the starter, then tried to figure out how God made things work, methods that were used, be it slow changes over time until we appear or wherever the Data leads.

I see DNA as a code and you can manipulate that code to change things in a person, animal and so on, this information should be evidence that leans more to a God then away from.
If someone was to investigate and collect evidence, this is something that would be used to help determine a God, instead it seems more like this thinking, "sense we know how this works and it took millions of years to develop, this is not evidence of a God" (probably not quite this line of thought but you get the picture)

Intelligent thought, evidence that leans more to God than away from. I am sure you can think of lots more of examples that should be considered evidences.

There is a real possibility of the existence of God so why remove God when he is the starter of what we are looking to figure out?

I am a sensible person, open minded, have a pretty sharp mind in my head, but I cannot see the sense in what is going on here and it troubles me, when I know there are allot of bright scientists out there and when I hear some saying there is no evidence for God, I feel it is not logical, it feels emotionally driven.

It is not evidence leading to a firm conclusion that God exists that they are looking for, because that is out there, if they really wanted to see it.
What it seems like they want is proof only... God stepping down and saying here I am! Because this is the only thing that will work, since all of the evidence is the life around us and they know this is not evidence lol

There're lots of things that cannot be proved but exist, such as emotions... but they exist. These are the few things that can be felt but not be proved to exist.

There're lots of things that cannot be prooved but exist, such as emotions... but they exist. These are the few things that can be felt but not be prooved to exist.

How do you mean? Someone can wire you up to a machine and tell you what mood you're in. They can show you pictures and tell you how you feel about those pictures. I don't quite understand your point. Emotions have plenty of physical evidence.

Ok then, but they're the signs that show that emotions exist... Emotion is just abstract...

Ok then, but they're the signs that show that emotions exist... Emotion is just abstract...

Interesting conclusion. I would argue that emotions are simply different types of brain activity, and that these are what are directly measured by MRI scans etc. How do you come to the conclusion that emotions are abstract? Do you mean that you believe that emotions are not physical in origin?

ok then why is it that you never hear these main stream evolutionists say God gave the spark and it went from there? why is this not taught in schools and there are protests about the mere mention of God in the evolution mix?? It really seems that they want there to be no God and are trying to push this in schools.

Many mainstream evolutionists say exactly that. While I don't have the statistics, I'll put money on the fact that a majority of evolutionary scientists believe in a god. Many just don't deem a god necessary for evolution to continue to happen (besides getting it started). Apparently you think that believing in a god is an all-or-nothing proposition. For the vast majority of people on Earth, this just is not the case.

there is a real possibility of the existence of God so why remove God when he is the starter of what we are looking to figure out?

There can be, by definition, no objective evidence for any god. Millions, maybe billions, see subjective evidence all around them. Fine. But not everyone accepts that there is a "real possibility" of any god. For you to insist they do is not the actions of the open-minded person you claim to be.

There can be, by definition, no objective evidence for any god. Millions, maybe billions, see subjective evidence all around them. Fine. But not everyone accepts that there is a "real possibility" of any god. For you to insist they do is not the actions of the open-minded person you claim to be.

Did I actually need to say "in my opinion" there is a real possibility of the existence of God? I never claimed that I believe that they believe there is a real possibility of the existence of God.

SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself

I see plenty of Objective evidence.. I can see dna as a code a language an intelligence in dna that leads me to believe something intelligent produced it.

You can see Dna as something that came to be on its own, assembled by itself with no intelligent creator..

But just because you (if you do) or others do not see this as leading to a creator, it does not make it subjective evidence.evidence can be rationalized away, if a person does not want to believe in something.

If for example we never saw the sun, but we had light and plants grew from the light all living things needed this light, so there came the conclusion through the data that the light came from something called a sun. no we never saw the sun but we see its effects we have all this to back us up on it. I believed in the light because I see it but I do not believe in the sun even though I know the light must come from somewhere unless I see the sun I will not believe in it so as far as I am concerned the light is appearing out of nowhere or another dimension or from a giant toaster.

Did I actually need to say "in my opinion"....

Apparently on this question it's a requirement. <G>

Apparently on this question it's a requirement. <G>
Ok, sorry :)