Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[justlookinla]

That statistic shows abortions happen, not a materialistic motivation. Did I not predict you would be unable to provide a source?

What?

And you seem to be admitting that you can present no situation where I as an atheist would treat someone differently than you would as a Christian.

There is no 'you' or 'I' in Darwinist evolution. If you think there is, offer evidence for it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no 'I' or 'you' in the sack of chemicals world of Darwinist evolution. We're simply chemical reactions acting on various stimuli.

I deny that. Instead, I assert that sacks of chemicals are capable of supporting such a complex information processing entity that it is a self. Can you prove me wrong, and actually prove that sacks of chemicals, even if arranged cunningly and complexly, cannot support a self concept, and a self motivation?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Life is sacred, which computes to a near zero abortion tolerance.

Why can't life that consists of complex chemical arrangements be sacred, even if that is what it consists of?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I deny that. Instead, I assert that sacks of chemicals are capable of supporting such a complex information processing entity that it is a self. Can you prove me wrong, and actually prove that sacks of chemicals, even if arranged cunningly and complexly, cannot support a self concept, and a self motivation?

While it might under materialistic terms be that a complex information processing entity that perceives itself as a self, there is no "self" other than that which the chemicals make it. That self has no choice in what that self is, chooses or thinks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why can't life that consists of complex chemical arrangements be sacred, even if that is what it consists of?

Consisting of is quite different than being totally and singularly chemicals and matter. That goes against Christian theology.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Consisting of is quite different than being totally and singularly chemicals and matter. That goes against Christian theology.

In what way? What Christians? There are, after all, many varieties of Christian theology.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In what way? What Christians? There are, after all, many varieties of Christian theology.

Ok it is not Biblical. Does that help?

 

[justlookinla]

I deny that. Instead, I assert that sacks of chemicals are capable of supporting such a complex information processing entity that it is a self. Can you prove me wrong, and actually prove that sacks of chemicals, even if arranged cunningly and complexly, cannot support a self concept, and a self motivation?

A computer is a complex information processing entity but isn't a self. Simply because we are chemicals interacting due to stimuli doesn't prove self. What you believe to be a 'you' doesn't exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A computer is a complex information processing entity but isn't a self. Simply because we are chemicals interacting due to stimuli doesn't prove self. What you believe to be a 'you' doesn't exist.

Good point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why can't life that consists of complex chemical arrangements be sacred, even if that is what it consists of?

Humans are gestalts.

That is, they are more than the sum of their physical parts.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

What?

I predicted you would be unable to provide a source that demonstrated that a materialistic view of humanity is responsible for abortions. You merely provided a source showing abortion statistics.

There is no 'you' or 'I' in Darwinist evolution. If you think there is, offer evidence for it.

That's not the point I'm making. My point is that there is no practical difference between believing we are God's special creation and accepting that we are just a sack of chemicals. To illustrate this I asked you to provide an example of how I as an atheist would treat someone differently than you would as a Christian. You have yet to do this and therefore have not yet refuted my point.

Edited for formatting

 

[Atheos canadensis]

While it might under materialistic terms be that a complex information processing entity that perceives itself as a self, there is no "self" other than that which the chemicals make it. That self has no choice in what that self is, chooses or thinks.

What practical difference does this make? Perhaps you can give a straight answer to this question where Justlookinla is unable to.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A computer is a complex information processing entity but isn't a self. Simply because we are chemicals interacting due to stimuli doesn't prove self. What you believe to be a 'you' doesn't exist.

Look, you just made an assertion. but you haven't provided any evidence in support of your assertion, neither scripture quotation, nor logical, evidence based reasoning. You just said its so, period.

Lets have some support for your assertion. Perhaps there is no support for your assertion.

I'm talking about the assertion that, if we are made up of chemicals only, we cannot be a self or a soul.

One of these days, we will be faced with a computer that asserts it is a self. By what means will you suggest we determine whether or not it is correct in that assertion?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Humans are gestalts.

That is, they are more than the sum of their physical parts.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Thank you for providing a scripture.

Notice that what makes the man become human is the breath of life. In other words, it is the dynamic, the action, the actual working of the whole being that makes a living soul. The same chemicals could be there in a frozen, unmoving state . . . but then there would be no life.

Notice that the man is not issued a soul. It is not extra ectoplasm that comes down from heaven that makes the man a soul. Instead, the man BECAME a living soul.

Its not what the man is made of that makes him a man. Its the pattern, the dynamic. Of course, the man has to be made of something that actually forms the pattern, and engages in the dynamic.

 

[The Cadet]

Christians believe that the Bible contains truth and that study of the Bible leads to knowledge of the truth.

Naturalist scientists disagree. They believe that knowledge comes from sense experience, experiments, and a peer-review process.

Some people in this thread have challenged Bible apologists to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether the Bible were true.

I challenge those scientific apologists here to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether empiricism leads to truth.

Here's one: spend a year without the fruits of empirical inquiry. Or, you know, two weeks. See how far you get. Science has literally built the world you live in. The fruits of empiricism and the truths it has led to are everywhere. Every element of your life has been molded and shaped by them. Empiricism tests itself. If gravity weren't true, we wouldn't be able to land a probe on a freakin' comet. If vaccines didn't work, we wouldn't have nearly eradicated many infectious diseases. I could go on and on explaining how the scientific method makes your life and everyone else's life better, but perhaps it will suffice to say: if you don't believe that science and empiricism leads to truth, I recommend throwing away your computer.

More than 40 million abortions every year according to the Guttmacher Institute.

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/abortion.html

http://www.livescience.com/5476-surprising-results-abortion-religiosity.html

That seems to have very little to do with this mentality you keep bringing up.

There is no 'you' or 'I' in Darwinist evolution. If you think there is, offer evidence for it.

I think, therefore I am. Wow, that was easy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What practical difference does this make? Perhaps you can give a straight answer to this question where Justlookinla is unable to.

The differences are those who believe we are just a sack of chemicals if true can not believe anything else but that. Life is illusion and nothing more. No mind, just brain...no soul...no real choices...no real emotions just what we were wired to think and even perhaps what we must feel as just an unplanned accident in the universe. If we are just a sack of chemicals there is no wrong in murder as it is just what that person's wiring led them to do, there is no moral right or wrong because we do not do right or wrong from motivation but that what we only CAN or can't do. Atheist have no more reason than do theists in their set positions because they have no choice in what they believe.

 

[Zosimus]

Here's one: spend a year without the fruits of empirical inquiry. Or, you know, two weeks. See how far you get. Science has literally built the world you live in. The fruits of empiricism and the truths it has led to are everywhere. Every element of your life has been molded and shaped by them. Empiricism tests itself. If gravity weren't true, we wouldn't be able to land a probe on a freakin' comet. If vaccines didn't work, we wouldn't have nearly eradicated many infectious diseases. I could go on and on explaining how the scientific method makes your life and everyone else's life better, but perhaps it will suffice to say: if you don't believe that science and empiricism leads to truth, I recommend throwing away your computer.

This is a statement of faith.

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.

Or maybe all of these things are thanks to Woden. Go for a year without the blessings that Thor has brought into your life (such as electricity, without which your computer wouldn't work).

Christians... scientists... two sides of the same coin. Yet they fight like dogs and cats.
Minds like concrete: All mixed up and permanently set.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a statement of faith.

That is a statement of denial.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

This is a statement of faith.

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.

Or maybe all of these things are thanks to Woden. Go for a year without the blessings that Thor has brought into your life (such as electricity, without which your computer wouldn't work).

Christians... scientists... two sides of the same coin. Yet they fight like dogs and cats.
Minds like concrete: All mixed up and permanently set.

Dr. Francis Collins has dedicated his life to Christ and made his living by being a scientist dedicated to empirical inquiry. There are so many false dichotomies made about religion and science. On a personal note, I've spent this past year on a quest for both scientific and religious exploration. My mind is not like concrete, nor will it ever be, and nor are the minds of many other Christians who also value science. The reason I joined this forum was to learn more personal perspectives about differing Christian views in tandem to academic classes I was taking on religion. I've done that while writing two science papers that have now been published.

 

[dad]

Seems to me it doesn't measure up to the quality of what a human being is, even IF humans are merely chemicals (a claim I don't support). In fact, I don't even see those particular chemicals even reacting.

Let's here a more reasonable defense of your idea that we can't possibly be made of just chemicals.

Jesus didn't die for chemical sacks.