You still have not addressed my arguments as to the incompatibility between evolution and your worldview.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

- A creationist is someone who outright rejects, or has a worldview that is logically incompatible with, universal common descent as defined in the current literature or any of its evidence-based implications.

---

...where teh fcuk are you getting that definition?

---

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity.

---

From Wikipedia.

A creationist would merely be someone who adheres to such a belief. Nothing more, nothing less.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

"f the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God...Consequently, theories of evolution which...consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

The Dalai Lama cannot accept the mind as emerging from matter, since that would mean that your mind disintegrates when your brain does, then that would clearly rule out reincarnation as impossible. So the Dalai Lama, being an atheist, still hold creationist beliefs regarding the origin and nature of the mind. Both are creationists with respect to the mind.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

Post edited at 1:27 pm on July 6, 2009 by Moridin

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

You still have not addressed my arguments as to the incompatibility between evolution and your worldview.

---

---

Quote: from Moridin at 2:58 pm on July 6, 2009

---

You still have not addressed my arguments as to the incompatibility between evolution and your worldview.

---

That's just it. You're arguing against something that doesn't exist. There is no incompatibility between evolution and my worldview.

---

What about the examples I cited in my earlier post? Or did you glance over them?

"You claim that your worldview accept evolution and all of its evidence-based implications, but does it really? Do you even know what they are? Can your position accept that the mind, and everything that makes us human is a material byproduct of unintelligent natural processes, and not that of an immaterial soul? There is a massive amount of evidence for this coming from the neurological sciences. I think not. Can your position accept that moral intuitions is just the result of an evolutionary adaptation to regulate prisoner's dilemma style interaction between organisms, rather than a divine inspired occurrence? Hardly. Can your position accept that over 99% of all organisms that has ever lived has gone extinct and still believe in an all-powerful and all-good creator who your position holds to be a super intelligent engineer that fashioned all organism according to his divine plan? I doubt it. Can your position accept that evolution is fundamentally non-teleological and that all genetic changes and environmental effects is a product of unintelligent natural forces? This would mean that there was no guarantee that humans would arrive at the scene at all. This is entirely incompatible with your worldview, which holds that humans are the center of creation, the reason for why everything was created. You cannot accept evolution into your dogmatic worldview, because the evidence-based implications of evolution is contrary to said worldview. I think that you understand that your position is ultimately against science and ultimately both scientifically and rationally untenable and this is your way of acting out in a poor attempt to rationalize your ignorant worldview."

To summarize: How can you simultaneously hold that

- the mind is just an evolutionary adaptation of the brain and at the same time think that the mind is an immaterial soul infused by god?

- all organisms are ultimately created by an intelligent designer through chains of physical causation, yet over 99% of all organisms have died out. Even the most intelligent human engineer would not have such a poor track record.

- humans are the results of a fundamentally non-teleological process of unintelligent natural forces and chance and that there was no guarantee that humans, or even vertebrates, would arrive at the scene yet at the same time hold that humans are the center of creation and the reason for why it was created?

I must admit that the cognitive dissonance required to hold these contradictory views simultaneously is very impressive.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

As long as you keep telling me what my worldview is, I have no need or desire to read your posts in their entirety. And as soon as you start trying to argue points about evolution that you try to use as evidence against God or His existence, you step outside of science, and become irrelevant.

---

Do you believe that the mind is a supernatural soul infused by god? Do you think that god is ultimately responsible for all of the life on earth, even though he might have used indirect methods? Do you think that humans have a special place in the world from gods point of view?

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:06 am on July 7, 2009

---

As long as you keep telling me what my worldview is, I have no need or desire to read your posts in their entirety. And as soon as you start trying to argue points about evolution that you try to use as evidence against God or His existence, you step outside of science, and become irrelevant.

---

Do you believe that the mind is a supernatural soul infused by god? Do you think that god is ultimately responsible for all of the life on earth, even though he might have used indirect methods? Do you think that humans have a special place in the world from gods point of view?

---

2. Evolution does imply that such a perspective is not reasonable. There are many, many obvious engineering mistakes in biological organisms which does not support the idea that an intelligent designer is ultimately behind life. The path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is my favorite example, but there are other examples of these sorts of jury-rigged exaptations.

3. You don't? Then why did god only imbue humans with an immaterial soul if humans where not special to god? Why don't ferrets have souls?

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

1. The implications from evolutionary sciences, especially evolutionary psychology and moral psychology has, arguably, presented a decent amount of evidence for the conclusion that the mind has a natural, rather than supernatural, origin and that it is an evolutionary adaptation, just like eyes or wings.

2. Evolution does imply that such a perspective is not reasonable. There are many, many obvious engineering mistakes in biological organisms which does not support the idea that an intelligent designer is ultimately behind life. The path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is my favorite example, but there are other examples of these sorts of jury-rigged exaptations.

3. You don't? Then why did god only imbue humans with an immaterial soul if humans where not special to god? Why don't ferrets have souls?

---

---

Quote: from Moridin at 5:49 pm on July 6, 2009

---

1. The implications from evolutionary sciences, especially evolutionary psychology and moral psychology has, arguably, presented a decent amount of evidence for the conclusion that the mind has a natural, rather than supernatural, origin and that it is an evolutionary adaptation, just like eyes or wings.  

 2. Evolution does imply that such a perspective is not reasonable. There are many, many obvious engineering mistakes in biological organisms which does not support the idea that an intelligent designer is ultimately behind life. The path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is my favorite example, but there are other examples of these sorts of jury-rigged exaptations.  

 3. You don't? Then why did god only imbue humans with an immaterial soul if humans where not special to god? Why don't ferrets have souls?

---

1 & 2. Implications are not evidence or proof. 3. I didn't say that I don't think humans are special to God. I don't think we have a special place in the world in His eyes. How long were the 'dinosaurs' the dominant animals on this planet? How long for humans?

---

Yes, implications are evidence. If A implies B, it means that If A (evolution) is true, then B (natural mind) must also be true.

1-2. How would you feel about the idea of the human mind having a natural, rather than supernatural origin? Or that no intelligent agency was behind evolution? Would that be something you could come to terms with?

3. But if humans are special to god, why was the human arrival on the scene far from a guarantee? Dinosaurs where the dominant creatures for around 160 million years. Humans for less than a few thousand years. Humans have existed for about 2 million years, but was not dominating for most of that time period. Then it can be argued that humans are not the dominant species on earth since we are food to literally billions of microbes.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:14 am on July 7, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 5:49 pm on July 6, 2009

---

1. The implications from evolutionary sciences, especially evolutionary psychology and moral psychology has, arguably, presented a decent amount of evidence for the conclusion that the mind has a natural, rather than supernatural, origin and that it is an evolutionary adaptation, just like eyes or wings.

  2. Evolution does imply that such a perspective is not reasonable. There are many, many obvious engineering mistakes in biological organisms which does not support the idea that an intelligent designer is ultimately behind life. The path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is my favorite example, but there are other examples of these sorts of jury-rigged exaptations.

  3. You don't? Then why did god only imbue humans with an immaterial soul if humans where not special to god? Why don't ferrets have souls?

---

1 & 2. Implications are not evidence or proof. 3. I didn't say  that I don't think humans are special to God. I don't think we have a special place in the world in His eyes. How long were the 'dinosaurs' the dominant animals on this planet? How long for humans?

---

Yes, implications are evidence. If A implies B, it means that If A (evolution) is true, then B (natural mind) must also be true.

1-2. How would you feel about the idea of the human mind having a natural, rather than supernatural origin? Or that no intelligent agency was behind evolution? Would that be something you could come to terms with?

3. But if humans are special to god, why was the human arrival on the scene far from a guarantee? Dinosaurs where the dominant creatures for around 160 million years. Humans for less than a few thousand years. Humans have existed for about 2 million years, but was not dominating for most of that time period. Then it can be argued that humans are not the dominant species on earth since we are food to literally billions of microbes.

---

---

as of this date, anyone who doesn't think that evolution is the leading theory on how modern humans came to be doesn't deserve to use the internet and any other advancement science has wrought.

---

Heheheh...touche, magic hallway.

-------
Kiara Liz