Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

"You must be born anew". Obtain into your being Zoe. Not something Burroughs experienced, which explains the misery he was stuck with. BTW: both sides my family were in Texas before 1845.

And obfuscation the first resort of the pseudo intellectual .

It cannot in any way- directly. But my inference is that man would: 1; Have to be capable of being responsible before receiving a spirit. 2. Such responsibility requires a free will. 3. Such a free will requires a certain (evolved, genetically determined) level of intelligence. 4. THAT
(3. above) IS amenable to empirical processes.

When faced with the fact of Venusian craters of recent- even potentially historic- origin, an astrophysicist refused to modify his belief in a uniformitarianism philosophy that excluded the possibility of such events. That is dogmatic, not logical or empirical. Uniformitarianism as a cosmological (pre-telescope) school of thought excluded the possibility of close interaction between planetary bodies.

Whatever else, I hope that you do arrive at the Truth..

From what premises did you make those inferences? And how do you determine whether or not those premises are true? How, specifically?Edited by ringo, : Spelings.

I completely disagree. If we are here due to the impersonal, non-teleological, stochastic workings of the laws of physics then the only purpose to life that there is is what we invent for ourselves. I think that is extremely important to understand, don't you?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The ability to choose (or reject) freely is intrinsic and unique to humanity. God is NOT capricious (all misunderstandings and misrepresentations to the contrary). Because man was made in God's image, we can thus extrapolate that God is a God of purpose, and is not arbitrary. He would NOT entrust man with any purpose unless man is capable of being responsible. and if man's decisions (will) are solely the result of either instinct or logic, then he cannot be responsible. A will that is a free will is necessary. And that has been shown to be resultant to a requisite level of intelligence, which is genetically determined.

I'm asking how you determine whether or not those premises are true. Anybody can rattle off empty claims - "God likes tofu." Show us the thinking behind your claims, one step at a time.

Can you prove or disprove the Bible? If you think so, then you rate yourself more highly than Rousseau- which is not very likely except in your self-evaluation- which is always (for all of us) never 100% accurate. Will the validity of evolution answer the question 'What is the purpose of man?'. "Coming to a full knowledge of the Truth is a subjective experience of a living Person. NOT an objective philosophy based merely on logical proofs. If truth was obtainable through mental effort, there would be no room for faith, grace, mercy, or Love.

Read post #81. Again.

You make logical inferences. Then you draw logical extrapolations from them. Then you test those with the known, relevant facts.

You can't make useful inferences unless your premises are true. How do you determine whether your premises are true? For example, how do you know that man would have to be capable of being responsible before receiving a spirit?

All knowledge (except for axiomatic truths) begins with making premises, which are then tested to see whether or not they are viable theorems. I 100% (to reiterate what I have previously stated) that YES! evolution is the only viable explanation for life as we know it. Why? Was it an axiomatic truth? No. But its premises logically led to inferences, which were empirically testable. Some failed. What we have today is the explanation of the process indicated by the mechanisms which passed the tests.

And I'm asking you how you test your premises. You keep talking about man receiving a spirit. How do you know that your premises about that spirit are true?