Ask Me Help Desk - Why naturalistic evolution is wrong.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ineedhelpfast

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldibart

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldibart

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown008

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown008

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldibart

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldibart

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldibart

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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

Ok, sorry :)