Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 9:06 AM
46 online now:
JoeT, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 41 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 31 of 70 (403333)
06-01-2007 9:26 PM


T o p i c !
"missing" links are NOT the topic here!

Do not continue this discussion in this thread.

ABE
I have had it pointed out to me that the topic originator (mpb1) started the off topic diversion.

I still strongly suggest that s/he open a new thread for missing links since your chart will never get finished with if you let this thread head off in that direction.

In addition, the reference you gave should be discussed in a separate thread of it's own since there is a lot to be discussed there.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 70 (403339)
06-01-2007 9:43 PM


New Thread Proposed
I have copied the reference to Schwartz' paper to a new thread.

When it is approved please take the discussion there.


  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 33 of 70 (403343)
06-01-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mpb1
05-31-2007 6:50 PM


From your Naturalistic Evolution section on the chart, Mark.

Man, by his very nature, is an evolved animal, without a soul.

That man is an evolved (and evolving) animal according to the theory of evolution is true, but the ToE has absolutely nothing to say on whether or not man has a soul. It's about the material, biological world, and unless the soul is supposed to be a physical thing made of chemicals, like the brain, then it doesn't and cannot come into the realms of science at all.

So you should take the three words "without a soul" out of your chart, as they're misleading.

I'm not religious myself, but there are some religious people using this site who are firm supporters of naturalistic evolution, and also, I assume, firm believers in the human soul, and I'm sure they'd back me up on this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mpb1, posted 05-31-2007 6:50 PM mpb1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:03 PM bluegenes has responded

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 4215 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 34 of 70 (403346)
06-01-2007 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by bluegenes
06-01-2007 10:20 PM


bluegenes,

I appreciate all feedback, and want to use whatever I can, but I believe that "without a soul" is implied in a purely naturalistic explanation of man. A "soul" is nowhere to be found in the anatomy of a human being. So in the purely naturalistic view, it cannot exist.

Certainly evolutionists would not point this out, to avoid unnecesary offense. But with a series of YES / NO questions, I'd bet that any evolutionist could be cornered into acknowledging as much.

Don't make me try it :)

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 06-01-2007 10:20 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:12 PM mpb1 has not yet responded
 Message 36 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:19 PM mpb1 has not yet responded
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 12:36 AM mpb1 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 70 (403347)
06-01-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mpb1
06-01-2007 11:03 PM


Certainly evolutionists would not point this out, to avoid unnecesary offense. But with a series of YES / NO questions, I'd bet that any evolutionist could be cornered into acknowledging as much.

You'd lose.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:03 PM mpb1 has not yet responded

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 4215 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 36 of 70 (403349)
06-01-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mpb1
06-01-2007 11:03 PM



1.) Please take a look at this diagram of the human body.

2.) Would you kindly point out the human soul?

3a.) That's not the soul. The diagram says 'brain.'

3b.) Oh, you don't know where the soul is because you can't find it?

4.) Do you have faith to believe it's there, even though you can't see it?

I thought not. Thank you for your time.

-

Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:03 PM mpb1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:28 PM mpb1 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 70 (403350)
06-01-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mpb1
06-01-2007 11:19 PM


on the soul
You cannot point to the soul because there is no evidence it exists, and should it exist, by definition is is neither natural, dependent on life or part of the body. By definition the soul is that which continues on after death, so it is not part of anything that gets left behind.

The soul is simply a matter of Faith. It can ONLY be something someone believes in.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:19 PM mpb1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:33 PM jar has responded

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 4215 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 38 of 70 (403351)
06-01-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
06-01-2007 11:28 PM


Re: on the soul

Then it is automatically denied by naturalism, whether naturalistic evolutionists find this pleasant or not.

---

Sorry, admin. I know this is off-topic too.

I won't continue the "soul" discussion any further. I simply feel the need to defend certain statements in the chart, if someone says they don't belong. If I am proven wrong on any counts, I will change the chart.

But I understand the need not to take side issues too far off-topic...

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:28 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:53 PM mpb1 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 70 (403352)
06-01-2007 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by mpb1
06-01-2007 11:33 PM


Re: on the soul
Then it is automatically denied by naturalism, whether naturalistic evolutionists find this pleasant or not.

You said Evolutionist. Nor is it automatically denied by a natural view of evolution.

You are still conflating two areas, the physical and spiritual. In Message 34 you said:

Certainly evolutionists would not point this out, to avoid unnecesary offense. But with a series of YES / NO questions, I'd bet that any evolutionist could be cornered into acknowledging as much.

in response to bluegenes who said:

quote:
I'm not religious myself, but there are some religious people using this site who are firm supporters of naturalistic evolution, and also, I assume, firm believers in the human soul, and I'm sure they'd back me up on this.

This is on topic because it directly relates to your table.

I believe in a purely natural evolution.

I believe in a soul.

I believe "Man, by his very nature, is an evolved animal, with a soul."


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:33 PM mpb1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 12:02 AM jar has responded

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 4215 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 40 of 70 (403353)
06-02-2007 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
06-01-2007 11:53 PM


Re: on the soul
jar,

You claim to be a Christian, even though most of your views have no basis in Scripture whatsoever. (We've had previous discussions.)

If you have faith to believe man has a soul, then you have to believe God put it there (or it magically appeared), if a purely naturalistic explanation will not suffice.

Therefore, you could not be defined as believing in purely naturalistic evolution. You would be classified as a theistic evolutionist, or maybe just a very confused person who thinks he knows everything. Personally, I'd go with the latter.

The person who brought up the soul was saying I should remove "without a soul" from the NE column.

My point was and still is that the statement representing NATURALISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS is correct.

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:53 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 06-02-2007 12:27 AM mpb1 has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 70 (403356)
06-02-2007 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by mpb1
06-02-2007 12:02 AM


Re: on the soul
If you have faith to believe man has a soul, then you have to believe God put it there (or it magically appeared), if a purely naturalistic explanation will not suffice.

The soul did not evolve. It is totally unrelated.

There is no connection or relationship between "soul" and "evolution".

The Theory of Evolution, describes the totally natural explanation for the life we see around us, and what we see evidenced in the past.

Soul though is simply a belief. There is no way to test or examine such a critter just as there is no way to test GOD. There is no difference between Evolution as understood by an Atheist and Evolution as understood by a Theist Evolutionist. Everything we can see, test, examine, model, is the same.

Soul though moves into the realm of belief. It is not subject to testing, examination or modeling. It can never be more than a belief while we live. Perhaps, once we die we MAY get an absolute answer but ONLY if the soul really does exist.

You claim to be a Christian, even though most of your views have no basis in Scripture whatsoever.

That of course is irrelevant and totally off topic, but if you had bothered to read the links I provided for you, I believe you would find that my beliefs are very much grounded in reason and scripture.

Therefore, you could not be defined as believing in purely naturalistic evolution. You would be classified as a theistic evolutionist, or maybe just a very confused person who thinks he knows everything. Personally, I'd go with the latter.

The point bluegenes was trying to make, and I am trying to explain, is that there is no difference in the Evolution mechanism of a Theistic Evolutionist and a Naturalistic Evolutionist. As a Theistic Evolutionist I agree completely with Evolution as described by Naturalistic Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution does not deal with soul. It does not deny the existence of a soul, or even propose a soul.

Soul is a matter of belief UNRELATED to the question of whether or not Evolution happened.

If I am having a discussion about evolution with an Atheist about evolution, any differences we might have will be related to the evidence. The existence or non-existence of a soul would never even come up.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 12:02 AM mpb1 has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 42 of 70 (403358)
06-02-2007 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by mpb1
06-01-2007 11:03 PM


I appreciate all feedback, and want to use whatever I can, but I believe that "without a soul" is implied in a purely naturalistic explanation of man. A "soul" is nowhere to be found in the anatomy of a human being. So in the purely naturalistic view, it cannot exist.
Certainly evolutionists would not point this out, to avoid unnecesary offense. But with a series of YES / NO questions, I'd bet that any evolutionist could be cornered into acknowledging as much.

Don't make me try it :)

I think you're confusing philisophical naturalism with scientific naturalism. Science deals with the material realities of the Universe. The soul, as you point out, isn't material, which means it cannot be studied scientifically. It's a subject for theoligicians and philosophers, not scientists, and science cannot possibly tell you one way or another whether or not humans have souls.

The only one of the "theories" described on your chart which is scientific is the fourth one. The other three are religious faiths, which is why they can bring in things like gods and the human soul. They could also bring in goddesses, angels, fairies and anything else they wanted to into the equation, because with faith, you can believe in anything you want to.

But science is a discipline which is supposed to base its theories on evidence, which is why you expect things like the transitional fossils to be shown, and you ask for them further up the thread. You could try asking the proponents of the other three theories to show concrete evidence of their three slightly different creator Gods, or evidence to back up the time when they believe the soul was introduced into humanity, but you won't get such evidence. You could try asking people who believe in elves and leprechauns for evidence of their existence, and the results would be the same. If you want to believe in such things, you'll have to take them on faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:03 PM mpb1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 2:41 AM bluegenes has responded

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 4215 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 43 of 70 (403364)
06-02-2007 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by bluegenes
06-02-2007 12:36 AM



I freely admit that the first three views are based at least partially in faith. (I personally happen to believe there is also an element of faith to a belief in naturalistic evolution, but that's beside the point.)

Purely naturalistic evolution MUST preclude the existence of a soul, if you define 'soul' in the biblical sense — the way most people in America, at least, would define soul (having to do with an ability to commune with God, and innate immortality [or conditional immortality, depending on one's religious view]).

So in the generally accepted sense of the word, naturalistic evolution does not allow for the existence of a soul. Naturalistic evolution restricts humanity to bone, tissue, and chemical processes. It says man is formed apart from any supernatural activity, and there is absolutely no other explanation for the existence of a human soul.

So in the purest sense of the definition, I believe it is fair to say that for naturalistic evolutionists, humans do not have a soul, unless you want to define soul as a 'sense of self,' rather than something equal or akin to a supernaturally endowed, immortal, ethereal spirit.

So perhaps a naturalistic evolutionist who believes in a soul is 1-10% theistic (or perhaps 'magistic' :) 'cause biblical souls are not scientifically provable or measurable.

If 100% pure naturalistic evolution is TRUE, humans do NOT have souls, in the generally accepted definition of the word.

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 12:36 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Vacate, posted 06-02-2007 3:17 AM mpb1 has not yet responded
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 06-02-2007 10:16 AM mpb1 has not yet responded
 Message 48 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 11:23 AM mpb1 has not yet responded
 Message 49 by jar, posted 06-02-2007 11:26 AM mpb1 has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 5:58 PM mpb1 has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2677 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 44 of 70 (403365)
06-02-2007 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mpb1
06-02-2007 2:41 AM


So in the purest sense of the definition, I believe it is fair to say that for naturalistic evolutionists, humans do not have a soul

The theory of evolution does not say that, an atheist may use evolution as a way of showing a lack of soul but this is not proof. When explaining how to fry an egg I am not getting into a discussion about if a chicken has a soul. When talking about chicken souls I may bring up the act of fying an egg however.

restricts humanity to bone, tissue, and chemical processes

Good, thats what a scientist should do when talking about bones, tissues and chemical processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 2:41 AM mpb1 has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 3986 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 45 of 70 (403368)
06-02-2007 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mpb1
05-31-2007 6:50 PM


Is the chart complete? It seems to be lacking scientific problems in the theistic evolution column. Maybe you can start a thread on that to get some input.

Also, given you last paragraph in the scientific problems of evolution, are you going to add an entire column for ID, or isn't that belief common enough?

Lastly, as others have said in this thread, the thermodynamics argument isn't appropriate, because evolution in no way acts against it.


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mpb1, posted 05-31-2007 6:50 PM mpb1 has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019