Just an Evo robot

Hi Almeyda,There are parables in the Bible, and parts that can best be understood symbolically. Others need to be considered in the context of the time that they were written. To me it does not follow that the whole of the Bible can be disregarded. As other posters have explained, the Theory of Evolution makes no prediction at all about an afterlife or lack if it. Nor does it provide a framework or worldview that excludes spiritual aspects. What we believe about such things remains entirely in our own control. And the view that the Theory of Evolution is wrong is just a belief also, and one that is unsupported by observations.If God exists, then surely the ability to look honestly at the world we are in must be valued. How then can it be wrong to accept as possible a theory that accounts for what we observe?

Okay, I see your point. I made a mistake being a YEC, and I am sorry if I tried to diss the ToE. So I apologize, but it was because of my incredulity you see. I was determined and wanted to believe YEC was true.

Congratulations on your courage, and I hope I can do as well when something important to me is challenged.

Actually I'd argue that the Argument from Evolution is one of the strongest arguments against the dualist position. Since in evolution there are no clear lines between human and non-human or between life and non-life there is no non-arbitary place where we can say 'this has a soul, this doesn't'. Further since the mind is not causally created by the body it cannot have evolved, since evolution is a purely material process.

Mr. JackPardon my denseness but could you clarify this line. Are you saying the mind arises from other than the material workings of the brain? If so please explain.

---

What is the direction, up or down, of the acceleration of a freely bouncing ball at the bottommost point of its bounce, that is, at the instant its velocity changes from down to up?

Hi Sidelined, No, I'm not. But that is what a dualist claims, and why evolution is strong evidence against a dualist position.-edit: aside- It's accelerating upwards.This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 06-07-2004 08:19 AM

As I said, the existance of an afterlife is non-testable. Since it is non-testable it is a matter of belief and faith.What does that have to do with Evolution? You will have to explain further on that statement. There is every indication that many creatures are thinking and communicating individuals. If that did not come about through evolution, how do you explain it? What is there in "mind" that you believe could not evolve?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, the existence of an afterlife requires the presence of a dualist conception of mind, I think the dualist concept is pretty thoroughly debunked by science - although the lack of a compelling materialist explanation still leaves the door ajar. If mind is a non-physical entity, how could it evolve? Evolution operates only on physical entities, indirectly 'building' individuals through the action of natural selection on genetic information so it could not evolve a non-physical mind.This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 06-07-2004 10:37 AM

So are you saying that I do not believe in an afterlife?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not saying anything about what you do, or don't, believe. I'm saying that the dualist conception doesn't make sense in the light of evolution, and that an afterlife doesn't make sense without dualism.

Then how do I support both?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have no idea. That's a question for you, not me.

Mr Jack writes I'd suggest that this follows only if you assume that the "spirit" cannot grow through experience and learning, but must evolve. Why would this need to be assumed?Reincarnation, as an example, would not require the assumption.

Jar you believe both by believing in 2 worldviews that are not compatible. And are only compatible when your own belief/opinion interprets/compromises your beliefs into theistic evolution.

IMO, reincarnation makes no sense - at all.

quote:

---

I'd suggest that this follows only if you assume that the "spirit" cannot grow through experience and learning, but must evolve. Why would this need to be assumed?

---

How did the 'spirit' become associated with the physical bodies it controls? How did those bodies survive without a functional 'spirit'? Why are animal, and human, behaviours and instincts consistent with principles derived from natural selection if not derived from them? Why can genetic defects, and positive mutations, produce changes in behaviour and intellect if they are not causal of them?