The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I take your point about some evolutionists also believing in a spirit world.

The "spirit world" ... not sure what you mean by that. Isn't this world the spirit world? You brought up spirits, and stated evolution teaches humans don't have one, "no room for a spirit".

That is an inaccurate statement. Evolution doesn't assert that.

You assert that if Darwinian evolution of biological life is accurate that means, according to your specific interpretation of your religious book not shared by most Christians, the supernatural elements of your religion are not real and that humans don't have a spirit.

That isn't the same thing at all.

When you are going to realise that evolution never states anything about your or any other religion. This is all you and other Creationists. You assert things about the world if evolution is accurate.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Occult, for example, has a great attraction in many areas where atheism and evolutionism are the standard assumptions.

Not really. Most occultists are deeply religious and also highly sceptical of modern science for its "cold" external finds about nature and for removing, in there view, man from a central position of importance in the universe

a strong desire to reconcile the findings of modern natural science with a religious view that could restore man to a position of centrality and dignity in the universe
Goodrick-Clarke

In this regard they seem to have a lot in common with Creationists. Both groups fear a loss of the pleasingly fantastical and the self importance of man, a loss of the feeling of being special and having a special place in the universe.

But this is slight a different topic.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What I should have said was that I cannot see how our present biosphere on Earth and evolutionary theory can account for the spirit world.

Well as has already been mentioned a number of times Wolfsbane, your lack of imagination is really here nor there.

Plenty of Christians either can or don't concern themselves with the how, simply with the fact (in there opinion) that it is did. I guess that is called faith, something your religion seems to admire.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I take your point about some evolutionists also believing in a spirit world. The "spirit world" ... not sure what you mean by that. Isn't this world the spirit world?

By spirit world I mean the existence of spirits, not so much their locality.

You brought up spirits, and stated evolution teaches humans don't have one, "no room for a spirit".

That is an inaccurate statement. Evolution doesn't assert that.

You assert that if Darwinian evolution of biological life is accurate that means, according to your specific interpretation of your religious book not shared by most Christians, the supernatural elements of your religion are not real and that humans don't have a spirit.

That isn't the same thing at all.

When you are going to realise that evolution never states anything about your or any other religion. This is all you and other Creationists. You assert things about the world if evolution is accurate.

You want evolution to have no implications for the rest of reality. I say that can't be. Every truth has implications for the rest. So I ask how evolution can account for the spirit? Where was the spirit when life was evolving? Is the spirit unconnected with physical life?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Occult, for example, has a great attraction in many areas where atheism and evolutionism are the standard assumptions.

Not really. Most occultists are deeply religious and also highly sceptical of modern science for its "cold" external finds about nature and for removing, in there view, man from a central position of importance in the universe

I found nothing in the article to suggest they are highly sceptical of modern science - in fact the quote shows that they fully accept it. They just want to deny evolution means a purely materialistic world.

In this regard they seem to have a lot in common with Creationists. Both groups fear a loss of the pleasingly fantastical and the self importance of man, a loss of the feeling of being special and having a special place in the universe.

But this is slight a different topic.

I agree. Occultic evolutionists and Theistic evolutionists share with Creationists the belief that we are more than sophisticated chemical reactions. Seems you don't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What I should have said was that I cannot see how our present biosphere on Earth and evolutionary theory can account for the spirit world.
Well as has already been mentioned a number of times Wolfsbane, your lack of imagination is really here nor there.

Plenty of Christians either can or don't concern themselves with the how, simply with the fact (in there opinion) that it is did. I guess that is called faith, something your religion seems to admire.

Thank you, that's my point: evolution and its materialistic basis has NO way to account for the existence of the spirit.

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

So I ask how evolution can account for the spirit?

Until the spirit can be observed and measured it cannot account for it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where was the spirit when life was evolving? Is the spirit unconnected with physical life?

Perhaps it was evolving right along side it...

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you, that's my point: evolution and its materialistic basis has NO way to account for the existence of the spirit.

How can actual real science, not creation science, real science, account for something that cannot be measured? How many times in this thread have you been told that science only deals in that which can be measured and observed?

MrP

MooseJam

evolution says there are no spirits

santing

MooseJam wrote: »

evolution says there are no spirits

No, evolution says there are no spirits in the physical (observable) universe.

Joh 4:24 ESV God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

MooseJam

well we are in the physical universe so we have no spirits

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

No, evolution says there are no spirits in the physical (observable) universe.

No your both wrong, evolution doesn't say anything about the concept of the "spirit" at all

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You want evolution to have no implications for the rest of reality.

Er, no. I "want" evolution to be treated as what it is, a scientific theory dealing with the development of life on Earth.

Any conclusions you draw about your religion from what Darwinian evolution says are really neither here nor there.

We have already established that nothing in your religion is testable or verifiable, so speculation over how accurate your religion based on evolution is is rather pointless. Until you can deal with your religions supernatural claims within the realm of science it is pointless to try and assess how evolution, or any scientific theory, effects the accuracy of your religions supernatural claims. You might as well ask if evolution or gravity are accurate what does that say about Darth Vaders powers.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Every truth has implications for the rest.

Very zen Wolfsbane.

The point is that the truth of your religion is unknowable in any meaningful sense. You can't assess the impact of evolution on your religion because you can't study your religion in any meaningful fashion in the first place.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So I ask how evolution can account for the spirit?

I don't know because I've no idea what "the spirit" is.

Before one can assess that question you first have to figure out how one can model "the spirit" in a scientific fashion. Until then "the spirit" is an unknown concept, you have no idea what it is, how it works, or even if it actually exists.

Without any of this information asking how evolution can account for it is utterly pointless. I don't know how anything can account for it because I've no idea what it is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where was the spirit when life was evolving? Is the spirit unconnected with physical life?

No idea. Where is the spirit now? How is it connected to physical life now?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I found nothing in the article to suggest they are highly sceptical of modern science - in fact the quote shows that they fully accept it.

Did you read it?

"suggests that science and mathematics are unable to penetrate beyond the relationship between one thing and another in order to explain the 'inner nature' of the thing itself"

By defining a thing solely in terms of its external relationships or effects we only find its external, or explicit nature.

Like Creationism the occult criticise science for dealing only in the material. Occultists believe this misses the important details of existence, and relegates man from an important position in the universe

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. Occultic evolutionists and Theistic evolutionists share with Creationists the belief that we are more than sophisticated chemical reactions. Seems you don't?

No, I don't.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you, that's my point: evolution and its materialistic basis has NO way to account for the existence of the spirit.

No, but then how could they.

You haven't defined what the spirit is in the first place, how could they come up with a way to account for it?

But that wasn't your actual point though, was it wolfsbane?

Your actual point was your incorrect assertion that evolution say there is no spirit.

As I said that assertion is based on your inability to account for the spirit (a concept you haven't even defined yet so that isn't really surprising), not based on anything evolution says.

Again you are confusing what a theory such as evolution says with what you say based on your understanding of evolution.

If you want to claim that if evolution is accurate then there is no such thing as the human spirit go ahead. But don't assert that that is what evolution says. It says nothing of the sort, it is all you.

Galvasean

The theory of evolution makes no reference to the spirit either way. Why do Creationists seem to want evolution to account for everything? You wouldn't ask how does gravity explain the spirit, so why should evolution?

thebaldsoprano

Galvasean wrote: »

The theory of evolution makes no reference to the spirit either way. Why do Creationists seem to want evolution to account for everything? You wouldn't ask how does gravity explain the spirit, so why should evolution?

Totally agreed with this one, I've a hard time seeing what either of these have to do with the God question at all... Both of these are good descriptions of things that happen, nothing more, nothing less.

The Mad Hatter

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps it was evolving right along side it...

Actually, working from the beginning assumption that the spirit exists, I think this is the most reasonable position to take.

If the spirit or soul exists, I don't see why it should be human-exclusive, and if it is not, then it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that it evolved alongside the rest of the living.

Way too much 'if' there Wolfsbane, I know, but remember we're starting from a speculative position regarding the existence of the soul.

Galvasean

I suppose if one believes in the existence of the human soul but also man's evolution from 'lesser' animals it would not be unreasonable to think that the soul too appeared (or evolved) gradually, instead of one day no souls, next day having a soul.
This could be an interesting turn in the conversation.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You want evolution to have no implications for the rest of reality.
Er, no. I "want" evolution to be treated as what it is, a scientific theory dealing with the development of life on Earth.

Any conclusions you draw about your religion from what Darwinian evolution says are really neither here nor there.

We have already established that nothing in your religion is testable or verifiable, so speculation over how accurate your religion based on evolution is is rather pointless. Until you can deal with your religions supernatural claims within the realm of science it is pointless to try and assess how evolution, or any scientific theory, effects the accuracy of your religions supernatural claims. You might as well ask if evolution or gravity are accurate what does that say about Darth Vaders powers.

If Darth Vader's powers depended on something the theory of evolution proved was impossible, we could conclude that Vader was not part of the real world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Every truth has implications for the rest.
Very zen Wolfsbane.

The point is that the truth of your religion is unknowable in any meaningful sense. You can't assess the impact of evolution on your religion because you can't study your religion in any meaningful fashion in the first place.

As above, if any assertion made by my religion is disproved by evolution then my religion cannot claim to be the infallible truth of God. That is a fundamental change for historic Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So I ask how evolution can account for the spirit?
I don't know because I've no idea what "the spirit" is.

This from the Wiki article on the 'soul' is a good beginning:
The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the self-aware essence, or consciousness, unique to a particular living being, defined as one being independent of the substance and that it survives the death of the body.

Before one can assess that question you first have to figure out how one can model "the spirit" in a scientific fashion. Until then "the spirit" is an unknown concept, you have no idea what it is, how it works, or even if it actually exists.

Like gravity, the spirit is recognised by most people. They see its effects - brain activity that can be measured; self-awareness; personality in others.

Without any of this information asking how evolution can account for it is utterly pointless. I don't know how anything can account for it because I've no idea what it is.

I've no idea what gravity is, but I know it exists. You are remarkable in not knowing if the spirit exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Where was the spirit when life was evolving? Is the spirit unconnected with physical life?
No idea. Where is the spirit now?

Mine is right here, reasoning with yours.

How is it connected to physical life now?

Seems to inhabit the brain - the brain is its interface with the physical world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I found nothing in the article to suggest they are highly sceptical of modern science - in fact the quote shows that they fully accept it.
Did you read it?

Yes.

"suggests that science and mathematics are unable to penetrate beyond the relationship between one thing and another in order to explain the 'inner nature' of the thing itself"

By defining a thing solely in terms of its external relationships or effects we only find its external, or explicit nature.

Like Creationism the occult criticise science for dealing only in the material. Occultists believe this misses the important details of existence, and relegates man from an important position in the universe

Yes, they point out the inability of science to deal with the spiritual, but they do not reject science. They fully accept it and its evolutionary tales - they just say they have extra, hidden, knowledge beyond science's reach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree. Occultic evolutionists and Theistic evolutionists share with Creationists the belief that we are more than sophisticated chemical reactions. Seems you don't?

No, I don't.

Again, I admire your honesty. Wickie beleives we are just sophisticated chemical reactions - now that is a bold world-view!

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Thank you, that's my point: evolution and its materialistic basis has NO way to account for the existence of the spirit.
No, but then how could they.

You haven't defined what the spirit is in the first place, how could they come up with a way to account for it?

But that wasn't your actual point though, was it wolfsbane?

Your actual point was your incorrect assertion that evolution say there is no spirit.

Here's my actual words:
What I should have said was that I cannot see how our present biosphere on Earth and evolutionary theory can account for the spirit world.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Like gravity, the spirit is recognised by most people. They see its effects - brain activity that can be measured; self-awareness; personality in others.

Brain activity isn't directly synonymous with the soul. Neither is self-awareness or personality. Animals have all these things but lack the human soul (assuming it is real).

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wickie beleives we are just sophisticated chemical reactions - now that is a bold world-view!

Not really. It's no more bold than saying someone like God created us.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's my actual words:
What I should have said was that I cannot see how our present biosphere on Earth and evolutionary theory can account for the spirit world.

It cant as far as I'm concerned. The spirit world (again assuming that it exists) is not a natural phenomenon. It is in the real of the supernatural which is not tested in the same way as say the biosphere or evolutionary theory.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, I admire your honesty. Wickie beleives we are just sophisticated chemical reactions - now that is a bold world-view!

Who said we are sophisticated?

:pac:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

If Darth Vader's powers depended on something the theory of evolution proved was impossible, we could conclude that Vader was not part of the real world.

That is exactly the point.

Just like with Darth Vaders powers you have no idea what the "spirit" actually is, how it works, what is made of, what are the properties of the thing it is made of, how it arises, or how it can arise, how any natural process effects the process of arising.

All you have is a vague undefined idea of what a spirit is supposed to provide (a method for eternal life) and a vague idea based on your religion that the spirit exists.

You have a lot of ifs ... if the spirit is this, if the spirit is that ... you have no idea what it actually is or how it actually operates.

Therefore trying to discuss it in terms of scientific models such as evolution and how these theories effect it is nonsense. You don't even know what it is, you certainly can't say how other things could effect it or effect how it arises.

wolfsbane wrote: »

This from the Wiki article on the 'soul' is a good beginning:
The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the self-aware essence, or consciousness, unique to a particular living being, defined as one being independent of the substance and that it survives the death of the body.

That is meaningless. It is just nice sounding waffle. "Essence" isn't defined nor is it define what the soul actually is. It simply says it isn't part of the physical body. Brilliant, where is my Nobel prize :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Like gravity, the spirit is recognised by most people. They see its effects - brain activity that can be measured; self-awareness; personality in others.

"Gravity" is a description of the end result of a process, a process that is currently unknown. Science doesn't yet know what produces gravity, though there are a number of theories.

You can claim that brain activity is the end result of the process of a "soul", but that is far more unknown than the process behind gravity, so calling it "soul" as if that describes something is just silly. You have no idea what it actually is or how it operates or even if there is an unknown process behind brain activity. You simply have what your religion says, which is scientifically meaningless.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've no idea what gravity is, but I know it exists.

As I said "gravity" is the name given to a end result of some unknown process. You can claim brain activity is the end result of some unknown process but there is little reason to say that, except that it is what your religion says.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are remarkable in not knowing if the spirit exists.

You don't know it exists either. You just hope it does because of your religious convictions. That is not the same thing as knowing.

Of course the original point was that even if the "soul" exists you still have no idea what it is or how it operates, so exploring how it is effected by the model of darwinian evolution is impossible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems to inhabit the brain - the brain is its interface with the physical world.

Seems to? What are you basing that on Wolfsbane? Is there a test one can do to demonstrate that the soul inhabits the brain? Or, more importantly from the point of view of science, is there a theoretical test that one can do to demonstrate that the soul doesn't inhabit the brain (falsifiability)

Or are you just making stuff up?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, they point out the inability of science to deal with the spiritual, but they do not reject science.

That is rejecting science :rolleyes:

When science doesn't give them the answers they want they abandon it and start making stuff up, just like Creationists (like you just did with the "soul"). That is a rejection of the scientific method.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, I admire your honesty. Wickie beleives we are just sophisticated chemical reactions - now that is a bold world-view!

Not really. Being a sophisticated chemical reaction is pretty neat.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's my actual words:

No, here are your actual word (already quoted)


Evolution teaches we came from inorganic matter, and that our organic state is just a variation of that and no more. No room for a spirit, just very complicated chemical reactions.

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

That is exactly the point.

Just like with Darth Vaders powers you have no idea what the "spirit" actually is, how it works, what is made of, what are the properties of the thing it is made of, how it arises, or how it can arise, how any natural process effects the process of arising.

Midichlorians?

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

Midichlorians?

Star Wars is a trilogy of movies, consisting of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and the last and final movie, the Return of the Jedi. 3 movies. That is it. No Stars War movies were ever made after that. None. Ever.

I do not know what you refer to by "midicholorians" as the nature of the Force was never disclosed in the one and only trilogy of Star Wars movies

Any speculation about what might have happened before the events in the first Star Wars movie is purely unknown at this stage. There was certainly no attempt by the creators of Star Wars, such as George Lucas, to ever describe the events before those movies. That never happened. Certainly not with idiot characters and nonsensical plots and actors who fell off the set of Dawson's Creek. That never happened. Ever. As such there is little point even theorizing about it. At all. Ever


oh and Han shot first. As everyone knows.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

"Gravity" is a description of the end result of a process, a process that is currently unknown. Science doesn't yet know what produces gravity, though there are a number of theories.

We know what produces it but no why or how. Gravity is caused by the changes in space time topography caused by mass. We have no idea why mass exerts such a change nor why it is so weak in comparison to other forces.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Midichlorians?

Blasphemy.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Gravity is caused by the changes in space time topography caused by mass.

Such space-time topography is just a description.

What causes two bodies with mass to be attracted to each other (ie gravity) is still unknown though.

thebaldsoprano

We can describe what gravity will do to bodies but not how.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We know what produces it but no why or how. Gravity is caused by the changes in space time topography caused by mass. We have no idea why mass exerts such a change nor why it is so weak in comparison to other forces.

Actually, I can see where you're coming from now, apologies. This stuff really wrecks my head

The way I see it anyway, gravity is a force, which will cause the change. Mass is a related but separate entity to gravity.
However, mass->space-time-stuff->gravity->change also works.

Guess the cause behind mass/gravity is still unknown though, unfortunately...

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Actually, I can see where you're coming from now, apologies. This stuff really wrecks my head

The way I see it anyway, gravity is a force, which will cause the change. Mass is a related but separate entity to gravity.
However, mass->space-time-stuff->gravity->change also works.

Guess the cause behind mass/gravity is still unknown though, unfortunately...

God did it.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

God did it.

Man.. you were doing so well..

*awaits for the quote to appear in J C's sig.

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

actors who fell off the set of Dawson's Creek.

Hey! i wasn't in Star Wars!

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

God did it.

I am now a believer! Thanks for the enlightenment.

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I am now a believer! Thanks for the enlightenment.

Soon we'll join Gould and Wald and Darwin in the hall of fame. We're both gonna get quoted by Reverend Emote. Minus the context of course.

Jesus Juice

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Soon we'll join Gould and Wald and Darwin in the hall of fame. We're both gonna get quoted by Reverend Emote. Minus the context of course.

hey have you ever seen the most hated family in america??

AtomicHorror

Jesus Juice wrote: »

hey have you ever seen the most hated family in america??

Nope, but I've heard plenty about Phelps. Multi-directional rage supported tenuously by the bible. He is a mentally ill man who will hopefully die promptly and bother us no more.