The Thread for Mind Expansion on LDS and Agnostic Thoughts

[Misshalfway]

Thank you Ram. You said everything my very limited brain couldn't find the words for.

[DigitalShadow]

Theories of evolution (I have found there is more than one), are only one way to look at things. Also, just because evolution may be true does not mean there is no God.

As far as I know, there is only one scientific theory of evolution, and I think just about any scientist would agree. Would you care to elaborate on why you think there it more than one, other than what seems like an attempt to cast doubt on the validity by implying scientists aren't sure?

While not scientifically driven, we can definitely look at other evidences, such as Near Death Experiences (NDE). There has been a lot of studies done, such as by Doctor Moody, which corroborate well with each other.

Interestingly, Alma's conversion story is very much a NDE. In Alma 36, he explains it to his son, Helaman. In it, an angel commands him to repent, to which he collapses into a coma for 3 days. He says that while in this state, he is in a different place, where he is tormented for his sins. This place fits in perfectly with LDS teachings on the Spirit World, with both a prison/hell and a paradise. It is only when he calls upon God and repents that he is delivered from the torment and into a peaceful experience. In this new experience, he sees the God sitting on his throne (a theophany).

In the studies done by Dr Moody and others on NDEs, one usually gets either an NDE of either paradise or prison/hell, but only occasionally both. But they are extremely similar to this account. Given that NDEs were not spoken of much prior to Moody's work in the 1970s, to have such an explicit and accurate one in the Book of Mormon, written in 1829, is astounding.

I do think that NDE's could be considered evidence of a spiritual being, but in my opinion it is rather weak evidence since there are a variety of descriptions of what happens in these experiences and in the religious versions of them all seem to support whatever religious view they had before the experience. The similarity in experiences probably correlates strongly to the similarity in beliefs and cultural experience before the incident.

[Misshalfway]

More Than Material: Evidence for the Existence of the Human Soul

Try this guy on for size.

Physical Evidence of the Soul

Or this one.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Misshalfway

[Misshalfway]

And one more note....I don't think we are the only beings with a spirit. I believe that our entire earth...every particle of matter, every tree, rose bud etc... has a spirit as well.

[DigitalShadow]

Buckminster Fuller once said: when he was born he weighed 8 pounds. At 25 years of age, he weighed 180 lbs. Then he ballooned up to 230 lbs. After dieting, he dropped back down to 180 lbs. After doing so, he asked himself, "Bucky, who was that 50 lbs?"

Clearly, we are more than the sum of our parts, otherwise those lost 50 pounds would have meant something. Instead, his personality, intellect, and most other attributes remained.

Let me clarify a bit. In my opinion, we are is the unique combination of our genetics and the neural pattern that our brain forms molded by external stimulus. I was not suggesting that we ARE the molecules that make up our parts, since those get changed out on a regular basis, I am suggesting that we ARE essentially the pattern that our brain forms.

If a person has brain damage, and it changes their personality, does that mean anything? Not to me. It means that we have a physical component that accesses the world through the 5 senses and via our world view/perception.

You've heard of people losing a limb and still being able to feel it? Some would call it phantom pain, but perhaps there is a spirit component to the limb that is still there?.

Perhaps it is just that the brain still thinks there is something that is supposed to be where the limb is and still sends nerve impules in that direction. Why aren't there phantom memories from what was lost in brain damage? Why doesn't the spirit component of the brain "remember" what was there?

Our Spirits are limited in this life, according to LDS theology. Upon being born, we passed through a veil of forgetfulness, which limits our spirits' ability to recall what it once knew. Our physical body also creates limitations. Physical bodies do not easily pass through doors, for example. And our physical bodies introduce new sensations, experiences, and desires that a spirit does not have by itself.

Losing an arm, becoming a stroke victim, having a hormonal personality change, or whatever, all of these things are temporary experiences for us to learn. All of it is part of the process in our evolutionary journey to become like God is. The scriptures teach that Jesus is able to succor us because of the things he learned in his sufferings.

Are your capabilities not greater than the elements you are made of? Can carbon think, type, or put together complete sentences? Not in and of itself. Only when organized properly into something "greater than the sum of the parts" can we have intellect.

Even today, scientists are unable to create life from inorganic matter. And the reality is, the statistics I've seen in the past suggest that evolution, without a guiding Intelligence to move it along, should take twice as long to develop than it has.

Scientists can create viruses from inorganic matter and in fact are close to creating single celled organisms from inorganic matter. Would that change your opinion of anything if scientists could create life from inorganic matter? The fact that we don't have the technology yet doesn't really suggest anything.

Edited August 6, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[DigitalShadow]

More Than Material: Evidence for the Existence of the Human Soul

Try this guy on for size.

Looks like an interesting article, I'll give it a read and get back to you with my opinion on his opinion. Doesn't look like much substantial evidence in it though.

Physical Evidence of the Soul

Or this one.

That link is from a scientific perspective, but was also published in 1907. I think we have made some significant scientific advances in the last 100 years, and a lot of the information in it does not seem accurate.

[Vort]

It is a pleasant thought that we are more than just the sum of our biological parts, but I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Of what evidence do you speak?

The evidence that direct manipulation of our physical brain can remove our memories and even change our personality as a result.

How is this "evidence to the contrary" that we are more than the sum of our biological parts?

If our soul or spiritual being existed outside the physical form why would parts of the brain dying effect it at all?

It wouldn't. Who says that personality or memory changes are changes to our spirit? No one has made any such claim. That's an incorrect assumption on your part.

If our spiritual being does not contain our personality, what exactly does it contain?

Here you are making a logical disconnect:

- If we have spirits, they "contain" our personality

- Spirits cannot be damaged by purely physical means

- Brain damage, a purely physical phenomenon, affects personality

- Therefore, we don't have spirits

But your premises are invalid.

- What does it mean to "contain" a personality? LDS scriptures clearly teach that the spirit and the body together make the soul of man. How can you define the personality of a mortal being without reference to physicality?

- What constitutes "purely physical means"? If you cannot define what a spirit is, how can you tell what constitutes the "purely physical"? (That said, I do believe it's pretty evident that purely spiritual matters are not directly affected by purely physical means. I'm simply pointing out the looseness of such language, and the futility of trying to impose rigid logic on such an ephemeral structure.)

- Assuming the existence of individual spirits, why would "personality" be a purely spiritual phenomenon instead of, say, a deep interaction between the spirit and the physical brain?

- The conclusion cannot be drawn from the stated premises, because the premises are ill-defined and not well understood.

I'm also open to evidence that we are spiritual beings, so feel free to present any if you disagree.

1. Nothing even approaching the abstract complexity of the human mind exists, or as far as we can tell has ever existed, throughout history -- except, of course, for humans.

2. A great many sober and truthful people have testified of the existence of spirits and a spirit world.

3. Near-death experiences have occurred to many unrelated and unacquainted human beings throughout history.

4. Many disparate cultures separated by huge distances linearly, temporally, and socially have shared the idea of a spirit that survives death.

There are many other evidences of the existence of spirits, as others have already presented. That you might explain each of these away by non-spiritual means does not detract from their status as evidence of spiritual existence, any more than the moon-hoax believers' explanations about supposed lunar landing evidence detracts from that evidence's existence.

Again, if you will give an example of what you mean by something that is more than the sum of its parts, perhaps we can communicate better.

[Vort]

As far as I know, there is only one scientific theory of evolution, and I think just about any scientist would agree.

I am positive you are mistaken. Witness, for an obvious example, those who argue for parallel evolution of modern humans between east Asia and Africa and those who argue for a completely African-centric, displacement view of modern human evolution.

[DigitalShadow]

I am positive you are mistaken. Witness, for an obvious example, those who argue for parallel evolution of modern humans between east Asia and Africa and those who argue for a completely African-centric, displacement view of modern human evolution.

I believe it is you who are mistaken. The theory of evolution refers to the mechanism by which organisms change, not the details of which organisms came from where and when. There are various theories of how it all played out, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Edited August 6, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[DigitalShadow]

How is this "evidence to the contrary" that we are more than the sum of our biological parts?

All of the phenomenon we experience seems to have an explaination within our biological parts without the necessity of something more. People can't think or even survive without the required parts of their brain and changes in our brain result in direct effects to every aspect of a person.

It wouldn't. Who says that personality or memory changes are changes to our spirit? No one has made any such claim. That's an incorrect assumption on your part.

I was inferring from what people usualy refer to when talking about a spirit, if you want a well structured debate, I suggest you define spirit explicitly and what all it entails before we go any farther.

Here you are making a logical disconnect:

- If we have spirits, they "contain" our personality

- Spirits cannot be damaged by purely physical means

- Brain damage, a purely physical phenomenon, affects personality

- Therefore, we don't have spirits

But your premises are invalid.

- What does it mean to "contain" a personality? LDS scriptures clearly teach that the spirit and the body together make the soul of man. How can you define the personality of a mortal being without reference to physicality?

- What constitutes "purely physical means"? If you cannot define what a spirit is, how can you tell what constitutes the "purely physical"? (That said, I do believe it's pretty evident that purely spiritual matters are not directly affected by purely physical means. I'm simply pointing out the looseness of such language, and the futility of trying to impose rigid logic on such an ephemeral structure.)

- Assuming the existence of individual spirits, why would "personality" be a purely spiritual phenomenon instead of, say, a deep interaction between the spirit and the physical brain?

- The conclusion cannot be drawn from the stated premises, because the premises are ill-defined and not well understood.

Please lay out your premises in clear terms so that they can be debated then.

1. Nothing even approaching the abstract complexity of the human mind exists, or as far as we can tell has ever existed, throughout history -- except, of course, for humans.

Having evolved the most complex brain of any animal is evidence of what? Are you saying other animals or life forms don't have a spirit?

2. A great many sober and truthful people have testified of the existence of spirits and a spirit world.

A great many sober and truthful people believe that Scientology is the one true religion, is that evidence it is true?

3. Near-death experiences have occurred to many unrelated and unacquainted human beings throughout history..

Similar physiology produce similar experiences near death... any surprise there? How is this evidence of a spirit?

4. Many disparate cultures separated by huge distances linearly, temporally, and socially have shared the idea of a spirit that survives death.

Wishing there is more to life than just the physical doesn't seem like a very hard concept to independently come to.

There are many other evidences of the existence of spirits, as others have already presented. That you might explain each of these away by non-spiritual means does not detract from their status as evidence of spiritual existence, any more than the moon-hoax believers' explanations about supposed lunar landing evidence detracts from that evidence's existence.

Again, please clearly define what you are proposing a spirit is before we go into evidence for or against.

Again, if you will give an example of what you mean by something that is more than the sum of its parts, perhaps we can communicate better.

What I am suggesting is that there is nothing of us that existed before we were alive and there is nothing more to us than our biological functions and once they cease, essentially what we know as consciousness is gone.

Not to say that I firmly believe that, in fact I seriously hope it is not the case, but I would say that is my opinion from what I have seen so far in this world.

P.S. I commend you for using a quote within a quote. I've done that a couple times, but I get lazy because the reply button doesn't do that for you automatically :)

[rameumptom]

As far as I know, there is only one scientific theory of evolution, and I think just about any scientist would agree. Would you care to elaborate on why you think there it more than one, other than what seems like an attempt to cast doubt on the validity by implying scientists aren't sure?

There is one major theory of evolution, which is that evolution occurs. But there are many theories of evolution that go the gamut on what exactly that means. Some theories even include an Intelligent Design.

Of course, there are many scientists that will insist that evolution is no longer a theory, but is now a fact. And portions of it are "a fact." We do see flies and animals develop new traits through adaptation. But to say that we come from amoebas is an uncertain thing to insist upon. I say that until they can actually show inorganic material evolve into organic material, it remains a theory.

I do think that NDE's could be considered evidence of a spiritual being, but in my opinion it is rather weak evidence since there are a variety of descriptions of what happens in these experiences and in the religious versions of them all seem to support whatever religious view they had before the experience. The similarity in experiences probably correlates strongly to the similarity in beliefs and cultural experience before the incident.

Except that LDS teaching is that each person receives the level of truth they are willing to accept, and so the spirit world would seem to be in the realm of their belief system - at least at first. So, while a regular Christian's view doesn't explain the experience a Buddhist may have in a NDE, Joseph Smith's teachings do. Given that Joseph taught what he did 150 years ago, he didn't have the opportunity to consider the NDE studies we have available today to base his prophecies upon.

[DigitalShadow]

There is one major theory of evolution, which is that evolution occurs. But there are many theories of evolution that go the gamut on what exactly that means. Some theories even include an Intelligent Design.

Of course, there are many scientists that will insist that evolution is no longer a theory, but is now a fact. And portions of it are "a fact." We do see flies and animals develop new traits through adaptation. But to say that we come from amoebas is an uncertain thing to insist upon.

There are many theories for how evolution played out on our planet, but there is only one scientific theory of evolution that lays out the mechanism for changes in the genome in response to environmental factors. I would also like to point out that the unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. I don't think that evolution is the only explaination for the diversity we see around us, but it is the only explaination backed by quite a bit of scientific evidence.

Scientists who say that evolution is a fact rather than a theory are doing so because of the frustration in trying to explain to the public how the word "theory" is used in a scientific context. Too many people simply dismiss well founded scientific principles they disagree with by saying they're only a theory, if those scientists were so sure about it, they would have called it a fact or a law or something. They have no idea the level of scrutiny something has to go through before even becoming a theory and that EVERYTHING in science is ONLY a theory because nothing is beyond question and further experimentation. That is the strength of science.

I say that until they can actually show inorganic material evolve into organic material, it remains a theory.

The theory of evolution says nothing about inorganic material becoming organic material. That would be abiogenesis which is a completely different topic with no bearing on the validity of evolution. I seriously do not understand why so many people seem unable to seperate these two concepts. As far as the theory of evolution is concerned, God could have said "Let there be the first single celled organism!" and then it appeared out of nowhere. If we could somehow go back in time and witness that, it would not change one thing about the theory of evolution.

Except that LDS teaching is that each person receives the level of truth they are willing to accept, and so the spirit world would seem to be in the realm of their belief system - at least at first. So, while a regular Christian's view doesn't explain the experience a Buddhist may have in a NDE, Joseph Smith's teachings do. Given that Joseph taught what he did 150 years ago, he didn't have the opportunity to consider the NDE studies we have available today to base his prophecies upon.

That is why I say that NDEs are evidence, but weak evidence since there is another much simpler explaination for them that does not include a spirit.

[Misshalfway]

Have you ever heard the term 'kill joy'?

[Vort]

Theories of evolution (I have found there is more than one), are only one way to look at things.

As far as I know, there is only one scientific theory of evolution, and I think just about any scientist would agree.

I am positive you are mistaken. Witness, for an obvious example, those who argue for parallel evolution of modern humans between east Asia and Africa and those who argue for a completely African-centric, displacement view of modern human evolution.

I believe it is you who are mistaken. The theory of evolution refers to the mechanism by which organisms change, not the details of which organisms came from where and when.

But rameumptom didn't talk about "the theory of evolution". Rather, he spoke of "theories of evolution" and stated that he has found there is more than one. I took his words at face value, and they are certainly true; there are indeed many competing evolutionary theories about all sorts of aspects of evolution.

Even if we accept your narrow definition of terms, surely you cannot believe that evolutionary scientists are in unanimous agreement as to the specific mechanisms of evolution. Huge questions still remain: What are the mechanisms of chromosome differentiation through time? Does widely spaced intraspecies "convergent evolution" (as it is called) exist to any significant degree, and if so, how much does it account for observed changes? What is the role of retroviruses in evolutionary history? Heck, I'm not even a scientist, and I came up with these off the top of my head. Anyone really versed in the current state of evolutionary science could rattle off two dozen more.

There are various theories of how it all played out, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

You may wish to reconsider this rather rash statement...

[Misshalfway]

Well, I made it thru the Faq's section. Nothing there that I have trouble with. All that I can see is that people look at this stuff and make their own determinations about whether or not God exists. I don't see anything that proves or even hints to the fact that their is no God. In my mind, they are coming closer to understanding God's process.

I was also thinking today about one verse in scripture that says "by faith the worlds were created". I was thinking how it really isn't a debate between science and theology. It is a marriage! What is one without the other? In my opinion, it is a drastically amputated view of the whole.

[Vort]

It is a pleasant thought that we are more than just the sum of our biological parts, but I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Of what evidence do you speak?

The evidence that direct manipulation of our physical brain can remove our memories and even change our personality as a result.

How is this "evidence to the contrary" that we are more than the sum of our biological parts?

All of the phenomenon we experience seems to have an explaination within our biological parts without the necessity of something more.

So what? Lack of evidence for something != evidence against something.

You claimed, "It is a pleasant thought that we are more than just the sum of our biological parts, but I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary." I don't believe any such evidence exists. I am simply asking you to present your evidence.

People can't think or even survive without the required parts of their brain and changes in our brain result in direct effects to every aspect of a person.

Untrue. For example, changes to our brain do not affect our fingerprints.

If our soul or spiritual being existed outside the physical form why would parts of the brain dying effect it at all?

It wouldn't. Who says that personality or memory changes are changes to our spirit? No one has made any such claim. That's an incorrect assumption on your part.

I was inferring from what people usualy refer to when talking about a spirit, if you want a well structured debate, I suggest you define spirit explicitly and what all it entails before we go any farther.

Actually, I was simply responding to what you had written. I would suggest that it is you who ought to define his terms.

For my purposes, here is my explicit definition of a human spirit:

A human spirit is an object with all of the following properties:

- It is the ultimate root of personality and decision-making ability in a person

- It is created of a form of matter not measurable or affected by normal physical processes

- It is a creation of God through a process of birth (though not necessarily similar to the process of physical birth)

- It houses or in some other sense encompasses the uncreated root essence (called the "intelligence") of the person

- It does not "die" or "decay" in the sense we normally associate with those words

Please lay out your premises in clear terms so that they can be debated then.

Not sure why I'm the one laying out terms, since I wasn't the one throwing the terms around initially. But there you are.

I'm also open to evidence that we are spiritual beings, so feel free to present any if you disagree.

1. Nothing even approaching the abstract complexity of the human mind exists, or as far as we can tell has ever existed, throughout history -- except, of course, for humans.

Having evolved the most complex brain of any animal is evidence of what?

Of the existence of the spirit. Aren't you following the thread?

Are you saying other animals or life forms don't have a spirit?

I am quite sure I made no such statement.

Either we are reading two different threads, or you are inferring an awful lot into my words that simply isn't there.

You want evidence of the existence of a human spirit. The fact that the human mind is absolutely unique in Earth's evolutionary history, with not the least indication that any life form before or since has developed anything remotely resembling man's ability to reason and communicate using an astounding level of symbolic abstraction, suggests that there may be a reason for that uniqueness. The presence of a human spirit behind the mind of man would help explain that development. (It would, in fact, beg the question, but for the purposes of our discussion that's irrelevant. We aren't discussing the purported origin of spiritual thought.)

A great many sober and truthful people believe that Scientology is the one true religion, is that evidence it is true?

Yes, of course.

The glove didn't fit OJ's hand. Is that evidence of his innocence or is it not? Of course it is. That doesn't mean he was innocent.

Or are you using some special definition of "evidence" that actually means "incontrovertible proof"?

Similar physiology produce similar experiences near death... any surprise there? How is this evidence of a spirit?

Because it explains the event.

Wishing there is more to life than just the physical doesn't seem like a very hard concept to independently come to.

So what? You asked for evidence, I presented evidence.

That you might explain each of these away by non-spiritual means does not detract from their status as evidence of spiritual existence, any more than the moon-hoax believers' explanations about supposed lunar landing evidence detracts from that evidence's existence.

Again, please clearly define what you are proposing a spirit is before we go into evidence for or against.

You seem to have our roles reversed. I was not the one making claims; I was merely responding to your claims. It is not for me to define my terms when you were the one making claims. (Yet, ever the peacemaker, I have done so anyway. :) )

What I am suggesting is that there is nothing of us that existed before we were alive and there is nothing more to us than our biological functions and once they cease, essentially what we know as consciousness is gone.

Yes, I realize that. What evidence do you have of that? (Note that you will first need to lay out your definition of what constitutes "consciousness".)

P.S. I commend you for using a quote within a quote. I've done that a couple times, but I get lazy because the reply button doesn't do that for you automatically :)

A feature (or actually a lack of feature) that is greatly missed.

[Vort]

The theory of evolution says nothing about inorganic material becoming organic material. That would be abiogenesis which is a completely different topic with no bearing on the validity of evolution. I seriously do not understand why so many people seem unable to seperate these two concepts. As far as the theory of evolution is concerned, God could have said "Let there be the first single celled organism!" and then it appeared out of nowhere. If we could somehow go back in time and witness that, it would not change one thing about the theory of evolution.

I share your frustration and agree with how you feel about this. Nevertheless, I challenge you to find a single college-level text on evolution that fails to present ideas of abiogenesis as the foundation for what comes later. Evolutionary scientists as a group are in fact aggressively atheistic, and they do insist on an atheistic origin of life.

In short, the pigheaded evolutionists have brought this problem on themselves.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Vort

[Misshalfway]

There are a lot of reasons why I believe in God.... and very few of them have to do with science. Maybe it is because I was bored during science class, and more likely it is because I don't always trust it or its conclusions. Don't get me wrong....I am grateful for antibiotics and the invention of the plane but none of those things truly help me with the inner depth and personal struggles of my life.

I believe in God because I feel something bigger than I am and I feel it in the depths of my being.

I believe in God because I have prayed.... for long hours, and thru deep and dark midnights and while putting on mascara in my car!...... and he has answered me. Once he told me who not to marry. Once He told me I needed to watch my mouth. Once he invited me to have more faith. Once he told me I needed to repent. Once he told me I was so incredibly wrong! Once he told me I was forgiven. Once he told me I would have another baby and not to follow the recommendations from my Dr. to end my pregnancy or to have my tubes tied. Once he told me he understood my pain and told me some other really personal stuff I won't share here. And once he told me to get my body in shape before I had kids and I didn't listen and I am still paying for that stupid choice!

I believe in God because I have read the scriptures and searched inside the light of Christ to find answers and because my mind has been enlightened too many times to count....... too many times to deny! I can't prove it to anyone! I can only tell you that I know it and can't deny it and hope that anyone who hears it can feel the surety that I feel.....or at least borrow my surety until they find it themselves.

Science or evolution can't tell me why my cousin died on I 15 in Southern Utah when she was only 16. Science can't help me will the broken parts of my heart or help me make impossible choices. It can't do so many things!!!! It can't help me master my passions or help me make personal decisions or heal my children or forgive me for making out with Ted Dixon in provo canyon! But God can! And does! And will! For me......for you.....for any of his children who exercise faith in Him.

I think that science and its theories have only taught me that the ideas and findings of man aren't enough to explain humans or the universe or the purpose of life! Science is one big giant guess!

This LDS religion isn't about fighting with science. It is about understanding a much bigger scope!

BTW, DS......what page are you on????

[Vort]

Scientists can create viruses from inorganic matter and in fact are close to creating single celled organisms from inorganic matter.

Can you provide a citation for this claim?

[DigitalShadow]

But rameumptom didn't talk about "the theory of evolution". Rather, he spoke of "theories of evolution" and stated that he has found there is more than one. I took his words at face value, and they are certainly true; there are indeed many competing evolutionary theories about all sorts of aspects of evolution.

I concede that in the original context he was referring to different theories of how evolution happened, not specifically the theory of evolution and that I probably overracted. Thank you for pointing that out.

Even if we accept your narrow definition of terms, surely you cannot believe that evolutionary scientists are in unanimous agreement as to the specific mechanisms of evolution. Huge questions still remain: What are the mechanisms of chromosome differentiation through time? Does widely spaced intraspecies "convergent evolution" (as it is called) exist to any significant degree, and if so, how much does it account for observed changes? What is the role of retroviruses in evolutionary history? Heck, I'm not even a scientist, and I came up with these off the top of my head. Anyone really versed in the current state of evolutionary science could rattle off two dozen more.

The specifics of the mechanisms that drive evolution can change, but it is still contained under the theory of evolution. We can talk semantics all day, but I would be willing to bet that if you ask scientists whether "There are many theories of evolution" is a true or false statement, the majority would say that it is at the very least misleading. If that is not the case, I apologize.

You may wish to reconsider this rather rash statement...

The details of anthropology and which humans migrated from where and when have no bearing on the evidence behind the theory of evolution. I stand by that statement, demonstrate how it is wrong if you think otherwise.

[DigitalShadow]

Scientists can create viruses from inorganic matter and in fact are close to creating single celled organisms from inorganic matter.

Can you provide a citation for this claim?

Gladly :)

For the viruses, I was referring to something I read in this article: Annals of Science: Darwin’s Surprise: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

As for coming close to creating a single celled organism, I was referring to a quote from Biologist P.Z. Myers when he was interviewed today. I don't know if I can find a transcript of it, but the mp3 of it can be downloaded here: WDAY-Ben-Jim-PZMyers-06-08-2008.mp3

[DigitalShadow]

So what? Lack of evidence for something != evidence against something.

You claimed, "It is a pleasant thought that we are more than just the sum of our biological parts, but I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary." I don't believe any such evidence exists. I am simply asking you to present your evidence.

I presented what I thought was evidence against it, it is clear that you don't accept that evidence, but I don't accept the evidence you presented for it either.

BTW, I recommend reading about Russell's Teapot

Untrue. For example, changes to our brain do not affect our fingerprints.

Point taken, I will rephrase to: changes in physical body can result in direct effects to every aspect of a person. Can you show any aspect of our person that is unaffected by physical changes to our body?

Actually, I was simply responding to what you had written. I would suggest that it is you who ought to define his terms.

For my purposes, here is my explicit definition of a human spirit:

A human spirit is an object with all of the following properties:

- It is the ultimate root of personality and decision-making ability in a person

- It is created of a form of matter not measurable or affected by normal physical processes

- It is a creation of God through a process of birth (though not necessarily similar to the process of physical birth)

- It houses or in some other sense encompasses the uncreated root essence (called the "intelligence") of the person

- It does not "die" or "decay" in the sense we normally associate with those words

Not sure why I'm the one laying out terms, since I wasn't the one throwing the terms around initially. But there you are.

Because you are the one that is asserting something exists, so you must define what you think exists if you are going to claim my arguments miss the mark for what you are claiming.

I am quite sure I made no such statement.

Either we are reading two different threads, or you are inferring an awful lot into my words that simply isn't there.

You want evidence of the existence of a human spirit. The fact that the human mind is absolutely unique in Earth's evolutionary history, with not the least indication that any life form before or since has developed anything remotely resembling man's ability to reason and communicate using an astounding level of symbolic abstraction, suggests that there may be a reason for that uniqueness. The presence of a human spirit behind the mind of man would help explain that development. (It would, in fact, beg the question, but for the purposes of our discussion that's irrelevant. We aren't discussing the purported origin of spiritual thought.)

It was an honest question, I was not accusing you of anything, I only wanted to know if that is what you were saying when you cited the complexity of our brain as evidence of a spirit of some kind. I wasn't sure how else that would imply evidence of a spirit. A simple "no" would have sufficed :)

Yes, of course.

The glove didn't fit OJ's hand. Is that evidence of his innocence or is it not? Of course it is. That doesn't mean he was innocent.

Or are you using some special definition of "evidence" that actually means "incontrovertible proof"?

The fact that reasonable people exist who believe it, is not evidence of anything of anything in my opinion. Your opinion may differ, but I assure you that I do not have a "special" definition of "evidence."

Because it explains the event.

I explained the event as well and with a much simpler mechanism, I could explain it as the Dark Lord Xenu implanting meories in your head with thetans, that doesn't mean my act of explaination is evidence for that explaination.

So what? You asked for evidence, I presented evidence.

I don't accept what you prevented as evidence of anything, just like you don't accept my statements as evidence. I don't see how presenting an untestable explaination is evidence.

You seem to have our roles reversed. I was not the one making claims; I was merely responding to your claims. It is not for me to define my terms when you were the one making claims. (Yet, ever the peacemaker, I have done so anyway. :) )

Thank you for graciously complying with my request :) I would like to point out though, that you are proposing that something exists that I have no knowledge of, if you don't define what exactly it is you think exists, how can I present any evidence to the contrary? You can just say that my definition is wrong to begin with as you did before and the whole thing will be pointless. How can I accurately define what it is that you claim exists?

Yes, I realize that. What evidence do you have of that? (Note that you will first need to lay out your definition of what constitutes "consciousness".))

The evidence I originally cited about there being no part of our being that cannot be effected by changes to our physical body. That supports my assertion that there is nothing "more" to our beings than the biological processes. (You can leave out the part about consciousness if the word is unclear to you, it was unneccessary to my premise).

A feature (or actually a lack of feature) that is greatly missed.

I wonder if we can pettition the mods to add that feature. I've seen it on many other boards.

[Misshalfway]

You guys can continue with this battle of the bands.

I am going to bed.

[DigitalShadow]

I share your frustration and agree with how you feel about this. Nevertheless, I challenge you to find a single college-level text on evolution that fails to present ideas of abiogenesis as the foundation for what comes later. Evolutionary scientists as a group are in fact aggressively atheistic, and they do insist on an atheistic origin of life.

In short, the pigheaded evolutionists have brought this problem on themselves.

The majority of scientists are christian, as with the rest of the population, and I don't feel like buying a bunch of college level textbooks just to prove an irrelevant point. Instead I challenge you to show me exerpts from more than one college-level text on evolution that presents the theory as dependent on abiogenesis.

In short, ad hominem attacks on "evolutionists" are innappropriate. I think the conversation up to this point has been pleasant and reasonable though, so I respectfully ask that you retract the "pigheaded" part of that statement.

Edited August 7, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[DigitalShadow]

There are a lot of reasons why I believe in God.... and very few of them have to do with science. Maybe it is because I was bored during science class, and more likely it is because I don't always trust it or its conclusions. Don't get me wrong....I am grateful for antibiotics and the invention of the plane but none of those things truly help me with the inner depth and personal struggles of my life.

I believe in God because I feel something bigger than I am and I feel it in the depths of my being.

I believe in God because I have prayed.... for long hours, and thru deep and dark midnights and while putting on mascara in my car!...... and he has answered me. Once he told me who not to marry. Once He told me I needed to watch my mouth. Once he invited me to have more faith. Once he told me I needed to repent. Once he told me I was so incredibly wrong! Once he told me I was forgiven. Once he told me I would have another baby and not to follow the recommendations from my Dr. to end my pregnancy or to have my tubes tied. Once he told me he understood my pain and told me some other really personal stuff I won't share here. And once he told me to get my body in shape before I had kids and I didn't listen and I am still paying for that stupid choice!

I believe in God because I have read the scriptures and searched inside the light of Christ to find answers and because my mind has been enlightened too many times to count....... too many times to deny! I can't prove it to anyone! I can only tell you that I know it and can't deny it and hope that anyone who hears it can feel the surety that I feel.....or at least borrow my surety until they find it themselves.

Science or evolution can't tell me why my cousin died on I 15 in Southern Utah when she was only 16. Science can't help me will the broken parts of my heart or help me make impossible choices. It can't do so many things!!!! It can't help me master my passions or help me make personal decisions or heal my children or forgive me for making out with Ted Dixon in provo canyon! But God can! And does! And will! For me......for you.....for any of his children who exercise faith in Him.

I think that science and its theories have only taught me that the ideas and findings of man aren't enough to explain humans or the universe or the purpose of life! Science is one big giant guess!

This LDS religion isn't about fighting with science. It is about understanding a much bigger scope!

I don't think science isn't one big guess though, it is a myriad of small guesses that are weighed on their evidence and revised or thrown out based on experiment. Ironically, I see religion as the one big guess. I'm sure you see it a bit differently, just as I see science a bit differently than you, but there is nothing wrong with that.

I think that religions are incredibly helpful for a variety of reasons, but whether they are true is an entirely different issue for me.

BTW, DS......what page are you on????

I seriously need more time in the day