How to choose between creation and evolution.

[AV1611VET]

I disagree, the brain does receive and send information whether it be physical, mental or spiritual.

Sounds plausible.

We come from organic matter, an intelligence system and water.

Nope.

And did you mean "come from" or "came from"?

 

[AV1611VET]

The thing is science is based on fact, logic and conclusion,

Which means it should keep its nose out of Genesis 1, unless it wants to acknowledge the existence of the Theo-logical, and not just the Logical.

And as far as "facts" are concerned, science needs to stick to what they can recreate in a laboratory over and over, and not act like some kind of authority as to what happened in 4004 BC.

In short, there is no science present in Genesis 1, so what is science doing telling us Genesis 1 is just a myth, fable, allegory, or everything but true history?

... the way of life is opening up on the way forward ...

The "way of life" is Jesus Christ.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

... and science interfacing and agreeing with religion,

Secular science can agree with religion all it wants.

I don't think it does, but if it is going to this side of the Rapture, then let it.

But when secular science disagrees with the Bible, then secular science can take a hike.

Secular science has a way of taking objective evidence for the existence of God and reducing it to objective evidence for the existence of fallen angels -- then denying the existence of both by way of claiming they can't be verified with man-made equipment.

It has opened the door and should be open more.

Oh, don't worry.

There's a superscientist on the way who is going to perform [his version of] miracles and open that door wide open.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reading this was like music to my ears, I am already aware the human body is an organic matter with intelligence aka computer. In life there are opposites to everything and this is ours, a computer.

And who's doing the programming?

If you say we are individually, just call me Genghis Khan.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hardware: The brain.
Software: Knowledge, intelligence.
Spirit: The person at the keyboard.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And who's doing the programming?

There is a heritable 'recipe' (the genetic code) supporting the structural development of various core functions, but it's a learning system, effectively self-programming.

 

[AV1611VET]

And who's doing the programming?

If you say we are individually, just call me Genghis Khan.

There is a heritable 'recipe' (the genetic code) supporting the structural development of various core functions, but it's a learning system, effectively self-programming.

Then just call me Genghis Khan.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then just call me Genghis Khan.

Why?

 

[Tayla]

If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

The problem with delving into biology at the molecular level is that there is no point at which an intelligent designer could intervene.

Also, why would such an intelligent designer design such a fancy propeller for the E. Coli bacteria?

 

[driewerf]

You completely miss the point.

You can't talk about a supernatural event without any supernatural references.

The world is not just the physical that you can see, there is equal parts physical and spiritual. When you ignore the spiritual you are ignoring half of the facts. Creation was a miracle, a supernatural event, it wasn't a natural event.

No, i don't. I need to remind you to what post you reacted:

Great. Point me to the people who came to the conclusion of creationism without an apriori religious belief. I'll wait.

*waves*
Non-christian evolutionist of 25 years who became a Christian and then a creationist. Trust me we exist.

If you now start to invoke miracles and supernatural beliefs you clearly did come to creationism due to an a priori religious belief.

 

[Kaon]

If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

Both are logic of men and are, at best, painting a skeletal picture of reality. Entertain both; dismiss facets as you learn more. Don't retard you efficiency in knowledge building by depending on man-made logic/systems to be the "truth". The same societies that ridicule free thought are the same societies that, say, claim to master electrodynamics but continues to use combustion for the majority of energy (for whatever political, social or scientific reason - it still highlights a flaw in human thinking).

People are running amok calling a stick a "head-bleeder" because hitting people over the head with a stick tends to make one bleed from the head - but that is neither the function nor evolution of a stick. Things work, but that doesn't make them true, better or ideal - it just means it [seems to] works.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Both are logic of men and are, at best, painting a skeletal picture of reality. Entertain both; dismiss facets as you learn more. Don't retard you efficiency in knowledge building by depending on man-made logic/systems to be the "truth". The same societies that ridicule free thought are the same societies that, say, claim to master electrodynamics but continues to use combustion for the majority of energy (for whatever political, social or scientific reason - it still highlights a flaw in human thinking).

People are running amok calling a stick a "head-bleeder" because hitting people over the head with a stick tends to make one bleed from the head - but that is neither the function nor evolution of a stick. Things work, but that doesn't make them true, better or ideal - it just means it [seems to] works.

I don't claim to understand either position, but I believe the one.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem with delving into biology at the molecular level is that there is no point at which an intelligent designer could intervene.

That's like saying that one who designs a brick wall couldn't possibly design bricks.

Also, why would such an intelligent designer design such a fancy propeller for the E. Coli bacteria?

Actually that's a pretty simple design.

 

[Allandavid]

intelligence isn't confined to the brain, when we pass over we take the soul with us which includes the intelligence but not the organic matter i.e. brain, body, etc.

A claim for which you have zero evidence.

 

[Allandavid]

intelligence isn't confined to the brain, when we pass over we take the soul with us which includes the intelligence but not the organic matter i.e. brain, body, etc.

If “intelligence isn’t confined to the brain”, why is it that a person’s intelligence can be altered through a brain injury...?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If “intelligence isn’t confined to the brain”, why is it that a person’s intelligence can be altered through a brain injury...?

Indeed, why is it that every characteristic generally acknowledged to be part of consciousness and the sense of self can be altered or damaged by some kind of physical intervention?

Maybe, when you die of, for example, Alzheimers, it's all miraculously restored to peak condition - but peak condition of what age? do you sacrifice some knowledge and experience for a more youthful mindset? Do you get a youthful mind with the knowledge of your old age? What about the traumas - if you lost the memories of them, would it still be 'you'? So many questions...

 

[SelfSim]

Indeed, why is it that every characteristic generally acknowledged to be part of consciousness and the sense of self can be altered or damaged by some kind of physical intervention?

Why is it that physical intervention isn't a necessity for achieving changes in the sense of self?

Maybe, when you die of, for example, Alzheimers, it's all miraculously restored to peak condition - but peak condition of what age? do you sacrifice some knowledge and experience for a more youthful mindset? Do you get a youthful mind with the knowledge of your old age? What about the traumas - if you lost the memories of them, would it still be 'you'? So many questions...

Does long term motor neurone or Parkinson's diseases, not ultimately alter an individual's perceptions of what is real and what isn't?

I think the way we view the physiology of the brain as being (crudely) 'where it all happens', might fall somewhat short in recognising the significance of the tight integration with other elements forming the intricate neurological pathways we've evolved .. We need to update that simplisitic model, I think, in order to explain the higher level effects of disorders localised to other parts along those pathways?
(Akin to a circuit theory analogy in electrical physics here).

Mind you: I'm most definitely not talking about nebulous concepts such as 'the soul' as being a distinguishable element in those pathways here!

 

[coffee4u]

No, i don't. I need to remind you to what post you reacted:


If you now start to invoke miracles and supernatural beliefs you clearly did come to creationism due to an a priori religious belief.

I became a Christian first then some months later became a creationist, but I agonized over the two and tried to marry them together like a lot of people here do. It doesn't work. You cannot believe God's word is true as written and also believe in evolution. Before that I believed in the whole story of evolution, which has to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. Not that I expect you to understand as you are blind to the supernatural and it is as foolishness to you.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
This verse is not an insult it is simply the plain truth. I said creation was foolishness myself some years before I became a Christian. I was never an atheist but more an agnostic.
As I have said here before, it's completely useless to argue with someone blind to the supernatural and to God because nothing can come out of it. Debating science about it is also foolishness because science only looks at the physical. Would science agree that a man can be born of a virgin, walk on water and raise again? No, they are oil and water. There is no physical evidence or back up for miracles, they are discerned only through the Spirit.

 

[Tayla]

Actually that's a pretty simple design.

Yes. The E. Coli tail helps the bacteria kill people. Who would want to design such a thing?

 

[Tayla]

That's like saying that one who designs a brick wall couldn't possibly design bricks.

More like: this designer of brick walls can't design atoms, space, and time.

 

[SelfSim]

More like: this designer of brick walls can't design atoms, space, and time.

On the contrary, every single 'thing' in science, has either already been tested or is being tested and changes over time. Atoms space and time are classic examples of 'things' that science has changed its meaning of .. because of new results derived from that testing. These are in fact, concepts, and not what we commonly think of as being 'things' (or physical, unchanging objects). If they were 'physical objects' existing completely independently from our concepts, then why would they change at all?

Everything, with no exceptions in science, becomes an operational definition, otherwise it is neutralised (and bypassed) as being yet another belief.