Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[Oncedeceived]

No, I am saying that the human being can ascribe great value to complex and dynamic entities, regardless of their composition, whether chemicals, ectoplasm, or silicon.

They can, they do but they do it by being inconsistent with what they believe.

And you cannot make that ascribing going away by claiming they can't do it.

They do it, they can't do it and stay within their own worldview, it goes against the belief that we are all just sacs of chemicals. That they do ascribe value is not consistent with their own worldview.

They make their beliefs consistent with reality as they know it.

The reality as they know it is inconsistent with what it should be if their worldview were true.

I deny they know they have an absolute standard for morality. All of us are aware of differing standards of morality, such as how many wives a man should have, whether or not having slaves is moral, whether or not its ok to kill (insert ethnic group here) . . .

I deny that there is no moral standard, people may subjectively adhere to it but is still there.

Of course, most atheists these days adopt the moral standards taught us by Jesus, its due to the impact of Christianity on our culture.

I disagree. Culture has to do with the way the standards are perceived and acted upon.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The Christian worldview is consistent internally and externally. The Materialistic worldview is inconsistent internally and externally. The Christian worldview therefore is consistent, matches reality and the materialistic worldview denies realty. In practice materialists do not live their own worldview.

So in fact you can present no practical difference.

You also claim materialism denies reality while theism is in accordance. To make this claim you must know how to tell the difference between special creations acting with free will and sacs of chemicals doing what physics dictates. So please explain how you can make this distinction.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah. THAT was my point *eyeroll* Hey, care to respond to any of my other posts that were direct questions to you, since you're here now?

He struggles with straight forward questions.

 

[Armoured]

He struggles with straight forward questions.

So I see.

 

[whois]

So in fact you can present no practical difference.

You also claim materialism denies reality while theism is in accordance. To make this claim you must know how to tell the difference between special creations acting with free will and sacs of chemicals doing what physics dictates. So please explain how you can make this distinction.

hey, you and dogmahunter need to go head to head.
he swears evolution doesn't follow the laws of biochemistry.

 

[Armoured]

hey, you and dogmahunter need to go head to head.
he swears evolution doesn't follow the laws of biochemistry.

Does he? Sounds unlike him! Quote?

 

[whois]

Does he? Sounds unlike him! Quote?

that's what he suggests when he says GA's do not need to employ the laws of biochemistry.
check his profile, read some of his recent posts.

 

[Armoured]

that's what he suggests when he says GA's do not need to employ the laws of biochemistry.
check his profile, read some of his recent posts.

Sorry, may be having a blank moment, what's a GA?

 

[WordList]

They still pull teeth today. If science could save teeth then maybe you would have something to brag on. Look at the ancient skulls. The teeth are a bit wore down from chewing on grains but they still have all their teeth. Tooth disease is a modern problem due to the diet that Science provides for us.

Here is the oldest human skull, no dentists back then.

https://museumofhealthcare.wordpres...st-to-avoid-the-dentist-in-the-ancient-world/

 

[Oncedeceived]

So in fact you can present no practical difference.

You also claim materialism denies reality while theism is in accordance. To make this claim you must know how to tell the difference between special creations acting with free will and sacs of chemicals doing what physics dictates. So please explain how you can make this distinction.

I don't need to make the distinction the distinction is already there by way of what materialism demands as reality and what we experience as reality.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I don't need to make the distinction the distinction is already there by way of what materialism demands as reality and what we experience as reality.

That's not the distinction I was requesting you make. You claim that materialism denies reality because of free will, to pick one example. So how could you tell if you truly have free will or if you are just bound by chemistry and physics to react as you do? If you can't explain how you would do this, you can't claim that materialism doesn't conform to reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not the distinction I was requesting you make. You claim that materialism denies reality because of free will, to pick one example. So how could you tell if you truly have free will or if you are just bound by chemistry and physics to react as you do? If you can't explain how you would do this, you can't claim that materialism doesn't conform to reality.

I would assume that you are claiming that our free will is only an illusion, an illusion so compelling that we don't realize it exists? If indeed it is an illusion, our reality is as well. I not only deny that my self is an illusion, the decisions I make I feel I really do make and what I think I believe are my personal thoughts.

We have evidence for this actual self in experiments done by Wilder Penfield who did experiments that showed we can perceive a distinction between purely chemical determination of our behavior and our relatively free responses.

• Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the electrical current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the patient had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but also a nonphysical reality that interacted with the brain. (The Mysterious Matter of the Mind, 95-96)

 

[The Cadet]

This is a statement of faith.

Oh? You mean that scientific inquiry had nothing to do with the computer you're posting these messages on? What, do you think the scientists prayed to Jesus and the answers popped into their heads? No! They worked using the scientific method to engineer smaller and cheaper microprocessors to the point where consumer grade computer electronics were a good option! Without the knowledge that science has brought you, I know for a fact that almost no part of my life would exist. My hobbies, my job, my means of transportation, all of those only exist due to relatively recent scientific advances.

I might as well challenge you to spend a year without the blessings that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has given you. That would, of course, include not breathing air, not basking in the sun, not standing on the Earth, etc.

Congratulations for making a completely incomparable statement. It is taken on faith that God is responsible for the world; it is not proven. The scientific method is demonstrably responsible for the advances in modern society that we have today.

 

[The Cadet]

You can not consider him to be a part of science because he was not a part of their indoctrination in the education system.

This is complete and utter nonsense. His work was scientific, regardless of whether he was a part of the mainstream educational system.

 

[Jan Volkes]

The Christian worldview is consistent internally and externally.

Please forgive me for stating the obvious but the Christian worldview is not consistent in the way you mean it at all,
for a start Christians do not all worship the same God in fact all Christians worship their own idea of what a God is, they have been told there is a God somewhere in the realms of some fantasy place called the supernatural where God is said to live,
they are told to fear this God so they end up fearing the God they themselves have conjured up in their heads, I suppose it could be argued that this is consistent in as much as every Christian does the same thing, I also suppose that's where the idea of a "personal God" comes from because every Christian worships a God of their own making, that's why your God doesn't die when I die, mine does but yours doesn't, in that way Gods live forever or at least until that God goes out of fashion or people just stop believing in them like Thor, Zeus or thousands of other once worshipped Gods.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please forgive me for stating the obvious but the Christian worldview is not consistent in the way you mean it at all,
for a start Christians do not all worship the same God in fact all Christians worship their own idea of what a God is, they have been told there is a God somewhere in the realms of some fantasy place called the supernatural where God is said to live,
they are told to fear this God so they end up fearing the God they themselves have conjured up in their heads, I suppose it could be argued that this is consistent in as much as every Christian does the same thing, I also suppose that's where the idea of a "personal God" comes from because every Christian worships a God of their own making, that's why your God doesn't die when I die, mine does but yours doesn't, in that way Gods live forever or at least until that God goes out of fashion or people just stop believing in them like Thor, Zeus or thousands of other once worshipped Gods.

Yes, Christians all worship the same God.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I would assume that you are claiming that our free will is only an illusion, an illusion so compelling that we don't realize it exists? If indeed it is an illusion, our reality is as well. I not only deny that my self is an illusion, the decisions I make I feel I really do make and what I think I believe are my personal thoughts.

We have evidence for this actual self in experiments done by Wilder Penfield who did experiments that showed we can perceive a distinction between purely chemical determination of our behavior and our relatively free responses.

• Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the electrical current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the patient had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but also a nonphysical reality that interacted with the brain. (The Mysterious Matter of the Mind, 95-96)

I think we can agree that your conviction that you have free will is not actually an argument for its existence. You are a very complex sac of chemicals and there are so many factors that affect how you think and respond to stimuli. So saying you really think you have free will instead of a completely convincing illusion of free will is not real support.

It's hard to say with such a bare bones account and nothing from Penfield himself (I would be interested in something he wrote that outlines the proposition your source mentions), but that excerpt does nothing to suggest a separate mind. You have a certain part of the motor cortex being stimulated while the prefrontal cortex, which deals with executive functions like differentiating between conflicting impulses, remains unaffected. This does not suggest to me that there is a separate mind, it's just the prefrontal cortex being aware of the situation.

And this is a controlled situation with a subject who is fully aware of what is happening. In other words they are primed to be aware of a foreign influence. If your entire experience is the result of complex chemical reactions, how can you expect to detect this? You would have nothing to compare it to in order to conclude that you are not in control.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think we can agree that your conviction that you have free will is not actually an argument for its existence. You are a very complex sac of chemicals and there are so many factors that affect how you think and respond to stimuli. So saying you really think you have free will instead of a completely convincing illusion of free will is not real support.

It's hard to say with such a bare bones account and nothing from Penfield himself (I would be interested in something he wrote that outlines the proposition your source mentions), but that excerpt does nothing to suggest a separate mind. You have a certain part of the motor cortex being stimulated while the prefrontal cortex, which deals with executive functions like differentiating between conflicting impulses, remains unaffected. This does not suggest to me that there is a separate mind, it's just the prefrontal cortex being aware of the situation.

And this is a controlled situation with a subject who is fully aware of what is happening. In other words they are primed to be aware of a foreign influence. If your entire experience is the result of complex chemical reactions, how can you expect to detect this? You would have nothing to compare it to in order to conclude that you are not in control.

Your conviction that we don't have free will in actuality and only as an illusion is not actually an argument for its non-existence. In fact, self by experience, observation and testing exists. If self is self evident, your position of its being an illusion goes against a model of self experience by all of mankind and goes against it being just an illusion unless one can provide evidence that it is just an illusion.

Penfield did many other experiments that gave support to the mind and the brain being separate and the mind being in control of the brain.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Your conviction that we don't have free will in actuality and only as an illusion is not actually an argument for its non-existence. In fact, self by experience, observation and testing exists. If self is self evident, your position of its being an illusion goes against a model of self experience by all of mankind and goes against it being just an illusion unless one can provide evidence that it is just an illusion.

Penfield did many other experiments that gave support to the mind and the brain being separate and the mind being in control of the brain.

I'm not arguing that we don't have free will. I'm trying to get you to explain how you would tell the difference. If you can't do this then you have no support for the claim that materialism is inconsistent with reality. Saying self is self evident does nothing to answer this question. It is merely a reiteration of your belief.

And perhaps you could quote and link some of these "many other experiments" with which you seem to be familiar. Preferably something written by the good doctor himself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not arguing that we don't have free will. I'm trying to get you to explain how you would tell the difference. If you can't do this then you have no support for the claim that materialism is inconsistent with reality. Saying self is self evident does nothing to answer this question. It is merely a reiteration of your belief.

And perhaps you could quote and link some of these "many other experiments" with which you seem to be familiar. Preferably something written by the good doctor himself.

What are you arguing? Do you disagree with the notion that if we are just a sac of chemicals that we do not have free will?