Creationism

Post Reply New Topic

Baseless assertion.



The chemicals only follow the laws of chemistry. Do you really think they are subject to a mysterious force of the soul? Bend a spoon.



Is that simply what you feel, or because you are uncomfortable with this FACT?



That is because the structure of different human brains are different.

I'm gonna pick up the book 'The Grand Design' and look at it, it seems great to explain how the universe came about and science and all that stuff.

I'm sorry. Insist that feelings are somehow "magical" and divorced from the physiological processes that cause them if you wish, but that's not reality. You can't "choose" to have a sudden release of chemicals in certain situations, this is a physical response to stimuli. Someone who references "souls" as being part of our emotive response obviously has a mystical view of all things scientific.

Actually, all possibilities are considered with regards to things that are testable but have not yet been tested. The first planets to have been discovered outside our solar system have been gas giants like Jupiter because our telescopes and equipment could not be sensitive enough to see planets the size of Earth. This will change however, since we now have techniques and telescopes in space, like Kepler, that can actually detect such planets. It is not correct to say that the capacity doesn't exist because it has not been ruled out.

Also, every single chemical element that makes up a living organism is also found in non-living matter and the rest of the universe. If Earth and it's life were a separate creation then why are we even made of the same matter as the rest of the Universe? The atoms that make us up were once forged in core of an exploding star. The Earth and every living thing that crawls on it is not separate from the rest of the universe but part of it.

Anybody can bend a spoon with their hands. The mechanism exists, and any good anatomy/physiology textbook can explain that--this is high school stuff. What the anatomy/physiology CAN'T determine is from whence the decision comes to bend the spoon. Science doesn't ask those kinds of questions UNLESS it can be determined that there is some physically determining reason by which we should bend spoons at all--for example, a chemical imbalance as a determining cause for someone to obsessively or compulsively bend every spoon he sees. Science is simply not equipped to make determinations under normal operating circumstances as to the reasons why. I'm sure you could go around asking people why it is they bend spoons and show common causal relationship among spoon-benders, but the data gathered is anecdotal at best. This kind of data gathering is best left to psychological investigation, and whether psychology is a legit science is still occasionally debated (by the way, I was forced to study psychology as an integral part of my major, which was music education, and understanding book knowledge of psych and data collection didn't help me one bit with teaching. There is a wide gap between theory and practice, which in no way diminishes the value of psychology. My wife did complete a degree in psychology and has a little bit better knowledge of the subject than I do, and she can back me up on what psych is and isn't. Psych can seem hokey in its various approaches, but being a comparably "hokey" science will not preclude the men in white coats from picking you up and locking you up in a hospital if you express even the remotest hint of self-destructive thoughts. My wife would say "been there, done that," and the irony is, through no real fault of her own, she got to experience that whole side of her field from the perspective of an unwilling patient). The point is, spoon-bending is a decision that one can make for a number of reasons or perhaps no reason at all--simple boredom, even. There is no reason at all, no evidence at all to suggest that cognitive and physical behavioral patterns aren't subject to the decision-making processes of the psyche or soul. The process of thinking is generally an orderly process, not random, chaotic, or confused except when a flawed physical sensory interface feeds the mind misleading information. When everything is functioning normally, most people in general tend to make sensible decisions and act accordingly. The CNS obeys the will of the person who occupies it and provides a physical interface with the natural world. No need for me to stare endlessly at a spoon to get it to bend. If I want to bend a spoon, there is a sensible way to make that happen.



Notice how I used the words "I think" in the quote you took from me. Even I can admit when I've drawn conclusions based on what I DO know about things I don't know. You're certainly under no obligation to agree. It remains, however, that we ARE responsible for our responses to emotions or "chemical processes," either way. Any criminal can certainly and legitimately make a case for being under the influence of "random chemical processes" in a court of law if this is true; but this kind of defense never holds up UNLESS it can actually be determined that there really is a physiological problem. People even in Biblical times had enough sense to tell the difference, even if they had no way to determine the actual physiological processes involved. We are self-trainable to decide beforehand how we will respond in various situations. Random chemical processes do not adequately explain why this is and actually cause more problems than they actually explain.



Not true. The basic structure and function of the CNS is NOT fundamentally different from person to person. It is a known fact that certain areas of the brain respond to certain types of stimuli, plus it is known that certain types of mental functions are affected by corresponding areas. Neurons DO have a limited mechanism for regeneration, and often groups of brain cells adapt to handle the activities normally associated with disaffected areas of the brain. If the basic structure and function of the CNS is NOT remarkably different from human to human, why are we so different? Well, we are different PEOPLE. Possessing a soul gives us our spiritual sense of identity. The CNS only helps us interface with the physical world around us. Ultimately we are responsible as individuals for our decisions.

Every one of your decisions is influenced by your personality, thoughts, your environment and intent. It's not as special as you think it is. If I want to prove free will exists, I can always raise my left arm and go 'there, I did that all by myself', lying as it was influenced by my intent of proving free will. I can push someone away from in front of a car because of my personality and environment. You replying to this post to prove me wrong is influenced by your personality, thoughts and intent.

All of this is done physically in your brain using chemicals and neurons. Note how depression is caused by chemicals.

I'm glad I live in Britain, we seem to be at least a bit saner. As far as I know teaching evolution in science class has never really been much of an issue, not to mention Darwin's face is on every £10 note.

and "in god we trust" is on all of our currency.

We're kind of a scary lot.

"In God We Trust" first appeared on American money in 1864. Theodore Roosevelt considered it sacreligious to put the name of god on money.

With almost every member of the acting government up to his or her neck in some form or other of bribery it's obvious God is the only one left to trust and he took off centuries ago.

Exactly the earth proves that it is possible for life to begin given the correct circumstances, given the stats involved there is absolutely no rational reason to presume that this is the work of a supernatural force. The probability against life forming can be 'astronomical' and yet still highly plausible and as our existence shows most definitively probable





Of course there is and in fact you have just invoked it again. ie 'we have not found a single planet capable of supporting the genesis of life as we know it or been contacted by any being from such a planet, therefore it does not exist.' this is in essence what you and the rest of your ilk are saying. The fact of the matter being the universe is - as you would be well aware- massive beyond human comprehension.Our knowledge of our own solar system is rudimentary in the extreme and yet you have the arrogance to assume that we are on the only planet which supports life in the WHOLE of the universe!! !! !! !

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 10 Oct 2010, 7:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

Your first fundamental error is to think that chemical reactions are random. At macroscopic level, chemical reactions are deterministic. Understood?



How the Mars land rover 'decides' to turn at certain point? Its takes signal from its cameras, figure out its environment, and it turns if the conditions matches those set in its program. In this case, everything are electronic. In other words, the law of electrodynamics and the particular configuration of circuit explains the probe's 'decision'. No soul is needed. Likewise, there is no reason to think that a human cannot be explained similarly.

Here, you are having it backwards. There is no reason to think that the will, the psyche, or the soul exist at all. What you claim implies that chemicals in the brain behave differently from those outside, as only the former is affected by the soul. That is scientifically testable. Yet no evidence of this sort have been found.

Maybe you can give details on HOW the soul changes the chemical reaction within the brain?



The court also considers legal responsibility of a company, which does not exist in th phyical universe. So how the issue is handled in the court is irrelevant to how a person actually works.



What you are saying is no different from saying people are not fundamentally different from each other because all have eyes, legs, etc. The difference in connections of individual neurons is likely to explain the difference.

Boy, what a load of ignorant garbage.

No, we are "servants" to our chemical reactions actually, everything we feel, think and dream are products of neurochemical reactions as that is how we function, the "soul" is an abstract concept of that. You seem to be rejecting biology and neuroscience with ad hoc explanations. Bethie mentioned Oxytocin, which I repeat it here and supports that view, not only that, but it is evident that the "will" is not separated from our physical reactions, as you seem to suggest, I mean, mental disorders or conditions (however you want to call them) are clear evidence of that. Heck! can you say that your "will" is entirely independent from autism? Can your "will" not be affected by brain damage if caused by an accident or any other way?

The "fall in love" thing is sexual attraction anyway, so separating "lust" from "love" is meaningless within a biological context.

Last edited by greenblue on 10 Oct 2010, 5:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You mean The God of the Gaps?

I love how "god of the gaps" could be any god. It could even be the deist god I.E. the one that doesn't care what we say or do.

It could also be a magic. Why does nobody say that the "gaps" in science are proof of magic?

I believe the universe was created by Santa.