Where Exactly Is Your Soul?

Souls.  For some reason the majority of people, mostly religious, believe in their existence.  The existence of some intangible thing that directs and controls every action we make and persists beyond our bodies when we die.  Not only do they persist, but they retain our very personality and can in many cultures be judged and rewarded or condemned based on our lives and how we lived them in accordance with some certain set of rules.  However, why is this belief persistent throughout so many different cultures? Why is it taken as the “norm” when discussing religious belief or for some people, what makes us happy? In our American culture it is generally understood that people have souls, even if they are not themselves religious-it’s just something that exists.

Well I’m going to challenge that idea.

When we look at the idea of souls we have to begin describing how our bodies interact with them.  If people have souls and our body are things that our souls “inhabit” then how exactly does the soul interact with the body? Let me pose an example to maybe better illustrate this.

Let’s say we can measure your brain and we can see where the different parts become stimulated. Specifically let us look for the idea of pain in your brain. When we poke you with a needle on your finger, we see a certain part of your brain become agitated and register the pain.  Now, let us poke you on your foot, and see a different part of the brain light up. That is strange isn’t it? You feel the pain in your foot and finger, yet all of the activity is in your brain.  Now, let us send those same signals to that same part of the brain and leave your fingers and foot alone.  Odd, you feel pain in the same places. Why is that? It is because your brain and nothing else registers the pain that is occurring in your body.  It isn’t so much that your finger “hurts” but that your brain is responding to the nerve endings on your finger and sending that pain signal to your finger.  If we cut out those nerves you would feel no pain! Just ask anyone that has experienced a nasty burn on their hand, often they feel nothing yet their hand is burned to the bone.

So if we feel pain in our brain and not in our flesh, then doesn’t that make a case for the brain alone being the sole (heh get it?) respondent for our being? Another example if you remain unconvinced.

Often the soul is said to be the essence of a person. “She is such a wonderful soul, she’d never hurt a fly!” Without a soul, we are nothing. They contain our personality, our likes, our wants, our desires, and so on.  But let us take that person and through some circumstance deprive them of their frontal lobe.  No longer is that emotional responsiveness part of their brain present. Or worse yet, let us look at someone that has suffered a massive stroke or head injury.  It is all too clear that a person can be reduced in their emotional and general responsiveness by reducing the functionality of the brain.  In no way shape or form does a soul enter into the explanation here.  If a soul is otherworldly and responsible for our actions and is our actual essence of being, why does harming the brain harm psyche? Is it because the soul is “in” the brain, or is it because the brain “is” our being?

For many this is not a comforting thought to believe that we are the products of our brain, however, research and self reflection shows this to be the case.  How can one believe in a soul when we can physically alter the way you react or behave by physically altering your brain state?   How do we build a case for life beyond death when we can see the effects of life right here in the real world? If many more people, both religious and non, examined this idea they would come to the same conclusion: there is no evidence for the existence of souls, there is plenty of evidence against this existence, and even if there were souls, we have no way to explain exactly how they interact with our brain states and our personal being.

So the next time someone gushes about souls or their supernatural being, ask them if they feel any pain when you stamp on their foot or pinch their shoulder.  Ask them if their soul hurts or if it’s something else.  Be sure to let me know if you hurt someone’s soul.

Jason K.

Advertisements

88 comments on “Where Exactly Is Your Soul?

  1. Kristina Clement says:

    I was just thinking about this in the recent weeks, too. If souls did exist, presumably they would be in or entirely “brain contained”. But, isn’t it presumptuous to think only humans have them? And if you are brain dead, did your “soul” already move on? And what about those people that are “medically dead” for whatever reason, and are brought back? Did their soul already “get out” and go to Heaven, or Hell, or purgatory? Are they evil now? Or Zombies? WTH!? Exactly what time frame will this alleged soul linger in the dead body before it jumps ship?
    And on an entirely different note, as a rule, most religious folk believe that the only legitimate supernatural occurances are biblical in nature. Such as interactions with “God” or angels. But, if these same people feel that a soul is indeed a true part of the human body, then by default would they not have to believe in astral projection? (out of body experiences) Because, if a soul existed, and therefore could at some point be released from said body, wouldn’t some humans have figured out how to separate the two while living?
    For the record I personally do not believe in the existence of “souls”.

    • Larry says:

      your soul isn’t in your brain–you’re made up of your soul, your heart and your mind0–your soul is that part the brain and heart fight over. And then maybe you’ve never been temopted by anything.

  2. Mike says:

    Sorry I’ve been absent, but not to worry, I’m back.

    Ahhh, the Soul. A mystery to the atheist and evolutionist. Like consciousness, why is it there? Where did it come from? Why do we need it?

    It is interesting that the posts by Jason focus so much on religious ideas – it sure appears that Jason is trying hard to convince himself that God does not exist.

    But back to the Soul. IF evolutionary “theory” is true, and IF natural selection (which does occur by the way) is the causing agent for evolutionary “theory” then why would we not want to evolve a “soul?” After all, isn’t that the argument behind survival of the fittest? Taking millions of years to evolve various aspects of our physical being to survive? If I wanted to survive, I would work at evolving a mechanism that allowed me to survive forever. I would’t want the grave to be it – to be like rover – dead all over.

    • Larry says:

      Salvation–acceptance that Christ died for you is the only way to “survive forever”

      • Mark says:

        While possibly a nice idea there is no reason to believe that heaven or god exist, or that Jesus was raised from the dead. The Bible contains many factual errors and there is no cause to believe it is anything more than a collection of myths and legends.

  3. jastiger says:

    That makes absolutely no sense. Evolution is a theory that explains biological development, not the existence of supernatural or extra natural phenomena. Based on what you use as a justification for a soul, every living creature large and small has a soul after millions of years of evolution. Is that the case?

  4. Mark says:

    Mike,
    Your concept of evolution by natural selection is completely wrong. First of all it’s not a quote unquote theory, it has been rigorously proven.

    Second, organisms (excluding humans) can’t conciouslly “work” to evolve because they are not capable of understanding it. Evolution is something that happens without a concious purpose.

    Evolution occurs because the best adapted organisms are able to have more offspring. Mutations occur and the process repeats. Going into an afterlife would provide no reproductive advantage on earth. You are so enthusiastic about disreputing evolution yet it is clear you have no idea what it actually entails.

  5. Mike says:

    I believe that I understand the unproven evolution “theory” more than ya’ll do. It’s just that you don’t want to admit how ridiculous this “theory” really is that you must continually redefine it, to make it sound plausible.

    Although I hadn’t heard that one that “evolutionary theory” itself is this mysterious and miraculous process that decides for itself who and what will mutate and adapt.

    The point behind adapting or evolving a ‘soul’ was not for reproductive purposes, but for eternal survival! Isn’t that what your “unproven theory” speaks of? Survival of the fitest? Who is the fitest to completely survive?

  6. Mike says:

    See, you don’t even understand your own theory.

    Please read Julian Huxley’s “The Evolutionary Vision,” where he stated, “the earth was not creted; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, MIND AND SOUL as well as brain and body. So did religion.” (pg. 252-253).

    Certainly you admit that we all have conscieousness (self-awareness)? It is the soul/spirit that comprises our self-awareness, which is something that the animal kingdom does not possess.

  7. Mark says:

    Please keep in mind that he earth did not evolve in the same way as life, it came together by gravitational attraction in the proto-planetary disk of the Sun. http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio303/bigbang.htm

    Considering Huxley did not believe in anything supernatural, when he said the soul evolved he surely meant consciousness. “There is no separate supernatural realm: all phenomena are part of one natural process of evolution.” Huxley, Julian. 1969. The New Divinity in Essays of a Humanist’. Penguin, London. By definition a soul is supernatural.

    Actually, it possible that some animals are self aware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#In_animals
    Humans could simply have just a higher degree of self awareness.

    I think this might help you concerning your beliefs of evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml

    Evolution it NOT the “…fittest to completely survive” it is the fittest to reproduce, have you ever taken a real biology class?

  8. Jay says:

    If self-awareness is proof of a soul, what does that say about the mentally-disabled that lack self-awareness? Or those animals like like dolphin, elephant and chimpanzee that have self-awareness?

  9. Mike says:

    First of all Jay, it is agreed among Evolutionists, that self-awareness is what sets humans APART from the entire animal kingdom. Dolphins, elephants, chimps, birds, etc.

    Mark – then Huxley agrees with me by using ‘soul’ and ‘consciousness’ synonomously.

    If you mean biology class as in being taught through evolutionary dogma – no.

    Again, every link you give, has the evolutionary slant to it, but cannot be proven scientifically.

    Evolutionists want to believe that animals are self-aware because that would give them a bit of credibility. But most won’t touch the subject of “consciousness” with a ten foot pole, because it doesn’t fit into their evolutionary world.

    What is the purpose of the conscious? IF we evolved, WHY did evolution choose to give us a conscience/self-awareness/soul? What is it’s function?

    By the way Mark where did the phrase “Survival of the FITTEST” come from? I don’t recall Darwin ever saying “Survival of the Reproducable.”

    In discussing the conscience – Richard Gregory said, “If the brain was developed by Natural Selection, we might well suppose that consciousness has SURVIVAL VALUE (not reproducible value). But for this it must, surely, have causal effects. But what effects could awareness, or consciousness have?” (“Consciousness” – pg. 276).

    Sounds like he’s confused. Guess we had better tell him that its not survival but reproduction of the fittest. huh?

  10. Mark says:

    It’s really pointless to argue with someone who does not believe the evidence I provide without saying specifically why it’s wrong. And at the same time refusing to provide your own evidence (of creationism). I really doubt you will find someone who has the time to engage you in a 70+ page debate.

  11. jastiger says:

    I’m pretty sure chimpanzee’s and dolphins can be self aware in a limited capacity. Some animals have personalities and most definitely have some sort of memory. Just look at a pet dog, they tend to like sleeping in certain areas and their behavior changes when they are scared/happy, and they remember who their friends are.

    Humans have a more developed brain and are able to process more information. This does set us apart from other animals. This does not mean that other animals are necesserily unconciuos or that we magically have souls. We can see the increased brain activity in a human brain versus an animal brain. Why do we need to interject a superstitiuos thing to explain what we’ve just explained?

  12. Jay says:

    Google self-awareness, and you’ll see that chimps, dolphins, orangutans, elephants and dolphins all have self-awareness. That raises the question: Do they have souls?

  13. Mike says:

    I’m sorry for not being on the same level of thinking as the rest of you, but I assumed that we were speaking of level of consciousness that only Humans possess, and not the limited consciousness of the animal kingdom. I am separating the two, since humans are NOT part of the animal kingdom nor are we descendents of animals. You can be if you choose to, but I choose a higher form of existence.

    Humanity has been given a consciousness that makes us prone to embarrassment, self-recognition, self-knowledge, and being aware that we are aware – which is something that animals do not have.

    While an animal may be conscience, it doesn’t know that it is. even though it may react to stimuli, or feels pain, animals don’t know why, or for what reason. There is a huge difference between humanity and the animal kingdom. And no, animals do not have souls.

  14. Mark says:

    Really, we’re not animals? If your heart fails they might put one from a pig in you, and it will work. Sure is a big coincidence that animals and humans have so much in common. These amazing coincidences are much easily explained by evolution. Did you know the vast majority of our DNA is the same as a worm’s? Oh and we also share many characteristics with primates, specifically large complex brains, opposable thumbs, being able to walk on two legs and others. By any definition we are primates, the science in incontrovertible. Humans are virtually identical to chimpanzees except for maybe 2% of our DNA. Oh and it’s not your choice, whether you want to or not you’re an animal.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013104633.htm

    Hundreds of years ago humans didn’t know how we felt pain either, we knew nothing of nerves and how they conduct electrical signals to our brain.

    In case your interested in the truth: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

    • Mike says:

      Oh come now Mark, you can do better than that. You expect me to accept these links as proof, when you completely ignore and even refuse to accept any of the proof I’ve given?
      Mine is much more logical than anything you have given thus far.

      • Mark says:

        Oh I think I get it now, you’re one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks mainstream science is all lies for some cynical reason or another, this explains everything.

        I have never seen you provide one word of any kind of proof.

        • Mike says:

          That’s because the blindness of your theory will not allow you to see every piece of evidence I have provided.

  15. jastiger says:

    I am unsure that animals do not have the traits that you listed Mike. I know animals can feel emotions, they get angry at offenses, they get sad and mourn the loss of offspring or mates, and yes, even become embarrassed or humbled at times.

    Again more evidence is laid before you. What will you do with it?

  16. jastiger says:

    You’ve never went up to an animal and raised your voice at it? Never shouted at a dog and then had the dog lurk around trying to make himself seem small in your presence? Never seen videos of monkeys mock their human counter parts or seen a cat scared off by your sudden movement? Animals have emotion. That cannot be your sole property to claim that humans have souls and animals do not.

  17. Mike says:

    Major Premise: No animal has a personality.
    Minor Premise: Man is descended from animal.
    Conclusion: Man does not have a personality.

    The conclusion we know is false, yet the major premise is true, therefore we know that man is NOT descended from animal!

    • Mark says:

      Personality:”The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character”
      Animals have personalities, some dogs are nice, some are mean.

      In addition your concept of evolution is wrong, new traits can evolve. Legs evolved from fins and land animals could walk where fish could not, the human mind evolved as well.

      I seriously think you need to read up on evolution before you start arguing about it.
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

      • Mike says:

        Where is your proof that ANY of these things evolved?

        • Mark says:

          Read “Your Inner Fish”, you will see how legs and many traits evolved. I am no expert on the evolution of the human mind but since no evidence has ever refuted evolution there is no reason to think the human mind didn’t evolve. It like an astronomer knowing Newtons laws of motion and checking to make sure they are correct (I am ignoring general relativity for simplicities sake) for every single object they look at, it has already been proved.

          Of course you will just babble that it is all lies so why do you even ask for proof?

          It really comes down to who you are going to believe, a 2000 year old fairy tale of dubious origins or a huge volume of hard evidence and modern science.

          • Mike says:

            Well, Mark, I’d rather believe a as you call it “fairy tale” and be created by a supreme being, who loved me, than to be spawned over millions of years from the goo with no apparent reason for living and no apparent reason for dying. But then that doesn’t prove anything.
            So let’s get down to actual proof. Not “Your inner fish” but actual proof. Please show me where there still exist actual cases of evolution. I’m not talking about micro-evolution because we agree that such does exist. But that is not proof of your theory. I want macro-evolutionary proof.
            Also, please tell me which existed first, mind or matter?

            • Mark says:

              If you want to analyze the proof yourself, go buy a university level evolution textbook (although it might need a few other biology classes to understand) and when it lists an example, travel to the university or museum where the fossil is and examine it. I assume correct interpretation of fossils requires at least a bachelors, probably a doctorate, degree in paleontology or anatomy though. You could also travel to the Galápagos islands and study the birds there like Darwin did.

              Personally I am OK with believing the experts.

              Matter came first of course, minds evolved and they need matter to exist in.

              • Mike says:

                So if matter existed first – then how did it know it needed to develop a mind?

                • Mark says:

                  Thats completely irrelevant, nothing needs to “know” anything. If you knew the theory of evolution you would know that self replicating life most likely arose from a random mix of chemicals in some primordial ocean. From there it took 4.2 billion years of random mutations and natural selection for a mind to evolve. This is neither magic nor philosophy, its biochemistry. By magic I am referring to matter “knowing” it needs to develop a mind.

                  • Mike says:

                    Thank you so much Mark – you have just proved that evolution is irrational and illogical. I can’t believe that you actually believe in miracles! It was my understanding that Atheists and Agnostics thought that miracles were and are ridiculous, but you have just admitted that you believe miracles were the cause of evolution.
                    Now, please PROVE that non-knowing matter is able to to know that it needs to develop a mind. I also like the way you dodge answering the question with the words “most likely,” and “random” and “some” all showing that none of what you believe is provable.
                    Again, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that miracles do occur.

                    • Mark says:

                      You are obviously not capable of following a quite simple argument. Did you not read anything I just wrote? I never said it is a miracle. Just because the formation of the first self replicating organism was an unlikely event does not mean it has to be a miracle. And considering there are trillions of habitable worlds in the universe it’s bound to happen somewhere.

                      Again, did you not read a single thing I just wrote? Why are you so obsessed with matter “knowing” stuff? It has nothing to do with that, it was a random event. Random does not mean wrong, an apple falling from a tree on your head would be a random event but that does not mean it didn’t happen. The apple does not “know” to fall on your head, it just happens.

                      I say “most likely” because I don’t think anyone has worked out the exact chemistry of it. Of course that does not mean it’t not true. I suppose if you lived a few hundred years ago and saw lightning you would say “scientists have never found the cause for lightning, it must be God!”

                      In addition, even if evolution was illogical and irrational, which it isn’t, it would not mean that it is false. Now I doubt you know anything about quantum mechanics but it is certainly not logical to a layperson. Yet it is undoubtedly true. If you want to know more Google the double slit experiment. Oh and if you deny quantum mechanics you would not have a computer to write on.

                      By the way, you have still never proved a single point of you worldview and no one is going to take the time to debate you. Does this mean that you will forever withhold your knowledge from the world?

              • Dan Reed says:

                On a side note mark…experts can be wrong. Take for example all of these dinosaur species being recategorized as younger versions of other adult species, meaning the original “species” never in fact existed. I heard this on public reality radio this afternoon, quite interesting. It is sad to always assume the experts are right, and not an approach that requires a whole heck of a lot of critical thinking. Interesting conversation you two have going here.

                • Jay says:

                  That’s like saying experts can be wrong because they re-categorized Pluto as a dwarf planet instead of planet. The fact that the experts refined their conclusions in the face of more evidence shows a strength of science. Thank goodness science is self-correcting!

                  • Dan Reed says:

                    Exactly my point Jay. Experts can be wrong. I did not say they cannot correct themselves in the face of more evidence. I am saying, blindly believing everything you read because it is from a so-called “expert” is just as bad as blind religious faith.

                    • Jay says:

                      Yep, experts can be wrong — but who corrects them? Other experts.

                      “blindly believing everything you read because it is from a so-called “expert” is just as bad as blind religious faith.” Agreed. Good thing I don’t see that very often. More often I see scientists granting provisional consent to scientific theories that have good evidence and sound reasoning behind them — and they revise their conclusions in the face of new evidence. Sounds to me like the opposite of blind religious faith.

                      If you do have evidence that experts might be wrong about some animals having personalities and some animals having self-awareness, or if their credentials are not up to par, let us know. Just posting a blanket statement about “so-called” experts and how they “can be wrong” is not helpful.

                    • Dan Reed says:

                      Jay, I’m here just here to argue with you guys, because you cannot ever back down from an argument of any kind…ever. Maybe I’m working on my thesis and this is field research. Or maybe I am just bored. So goes the internet.

                      ““blindly believing everything you read because it is from a so-called “expert” is just as bad as blind religious faith.” Agreed. Good thing I don’t see that very often.”

                      Of course you don’t because you’re blind you moron! I shouldn’t have expected anything else from you.

                    • Jay says:

                      Ok Dan, I don’t want to start calling anyone a moron — but if I’m not understanding your position, please help me. If experts and “so called” experts can sometimes be wrong (and I agree that sometime they can be wrong), what is the best way to determine what to believe? I have suggested giving provisional consent to ideas that have good evidence and reasoned arguments, while being open to the possibility to revision in the face of new evidence. Is there a better way? What do we keep and how much do we throw out just because they “could be wrong”?

                    • jastiger says:

                      I think you are equivocating here Dan. You are saying that experts can be wrong in a way that lends itself to be interpreted as they have no credibility. That is a bit different; it’s like saying sometimes brakes on cars fail, therefor we should never use brakes. See what I mean?

                    • Dan Reed says:

                      “If you do have evidence that experts might be wrong about some animals having personalities and some animals having self-awareness, or if their credentials are not up to par, let us know. Just posting a blanket statement about “so-called” experts and how they “can be wrong” is not helpful.”

                      Ok, you are right. I went wayyy off topic as I tend to do on occasion. I truly am not passionate about whether animals have personalities or self-awareness, although in my opinion I think they do, just from having a dog as a child and having seen his personality and remembering it fondly. Also, maybe moron was a strong word, my apologies. It’s not your fault that some people may be walking through life with blinders on when it comes to common sense. It is frustrating to me to see all too often – expert “opinion” taken as fact with no questioning as to it’s validity. Scientific theory that advances personal agendas or political aims seems to me to be the norm, and anyone that speaks out against the “mainstream” views is immediately discounted. I know I’m going to take heat for this, but take the green movement or global warming for example, what may be the biggest hoax of any generation in the history of mankind. Anyone with dissenting arguments or proof is often immediately discounted in professional publications and the media, even if that argument or proof has valid points. The fact is, I am unaware of any ongoing discussion. What I see is that the mass of people in the world that don’t know any better are fed the popular consensus with no opposing viewpoint.

                      As far as the evolution discussion here, I have to say that it is a tossup for me. Were we created or did we truly evolve from single cell organisms? All I can say is I don’t know. It is one of the most vain thoughts that man can have to think they know all of the answers. Believe me, I would LOVE to have all the answers. I accept the idea of natural selection, the idea of survival of the fittest, and that animals and man do evolve and adapt to the world around them. What was the “fittest” in 1800’s America on the frontier is definitely not the same as the “fittest” for modern 2010 America. Man evolves and adapts in a very short period of time – given millenia a whole hell of a lot could change, so it is more than possible that the theory of evolution is valid. That doesn’t go to say that other viewpoints may be just as valid – we just don’t have all of the answers…**

                      **These are my conclusions based on my common sense viewpoint as well as opinions and facts that I take to be accurate, in a wholy un-scientific manner. No animals were harmed in the creation of this post.

    • zntneo says:

      I think the same logic that you use here can be used to prove birds are not animals

      1) no animal flies
      2) birds are descended from animals
      conclusion : birds cannot fly

  18. Mark says:

    Knowing that experts can be wrong, wouldn’t it still be rational to believe them considering that their theories are much more probable than the average person’s guess? How is the average person able to critically think about competing scientific theories and differentiate the correct one? As non-experts we could not intelligently discuss the intricacies of string theory, all we can do is believe the current scientific consensus.

    I will link to an article about the beginning of life to provide a more thorough description of it.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html

    There is also a point where it is only rational to believe a theory that has mountains of evidence in favor of it (evolution). What would you think of someone who spends this much time arguing that Newtons laws of motion are not applicable in everyday life? You would call that person delusional. If you want a less obvious but just as well proven theory consider general relativity.

  19. Homme says:

    @Mike: It seems that you don’t believe that man evolved, and takes no part in the lineage shared by other animals. Can you confirm that this is what you believe, clarify what it is you believe if it is something different, and in either case provide the evidence you think best supports your belief?

    Also, a general comment: the truth is unaffected by what one prefers is true.

  20. Mike says:

    Mark, you are the one who refuses to accept what YOU say. I’m just pointing to your own words. YOU said “By magic I am referring to matter “knowing” it needs to develop a mind.” Now if that isn’t a miracle, then I guess I don’t know what is. non-knowing Matter “Knowing” it needs something. I’m just trying to show your inconsistencies and your lack of critical thinking here.
    I agree with Dan that experts can be wrong. That is true on both sides of the issue. Which is why I don’t blindly accept what the “experts” say, I check it out for myself. I make sure the evidence supports the view before I accept anything. Which Dan I must correct you – it is blind scientific faith, not religious faith. Religious faith is built upon evidence. Evolution is not.
    Homme – I think this should answer your question about my position. I’ve been waiting for anyone on this site to provide evidence for evolution, and as of yet there no one has been willing to do so. It is those on this site who are responsible for providing evidence, since it is this site that continues wage irrational arguments against the existence of God, the soul, religion, intelligent design, etc.
    By the way – absolutely agree with your general comment.

    • Mark says:

      I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

      I said “This is neither magic nor philosophy, its biochemistry. By magic I am referring to matter “knowing” it needs to develop a mind.”

      For me miracles=magic and neither happens. Like turning water into wine, talking snakes, and healing sick people by touching them.

      I agree in that matter knowing it needs to develop a mind would be a miracle or magic.
      I don’t understand how you take “this is not magic[a miracle]…” to mean I believe in miracles. I specifically say it is NOT one.

      • Mike says:

        Mark,

        Biochemistry can work for Zillions upon Zillions of years and never once can or will it produce a mind in non-knowing matter.
        Because you believe that it does, proves you believe in miracles (magic if you will). There is no other explanation for non-knowing matter that you say was “eternal” to develop a mind. Can’t happen.

        • Mark says:

          Mike, do you have any basis for this statement or are you just saying what seems logical to you?

          The basic biological building blocks are easily created in early earth conditions, and are even found on asteroids which heavily bombarded the early earth. The basic molecules of our bodies are based on chemistry, not intelligent design.
          http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
          http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/sites.html
          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html

          Scientists don’t know exactly how those molecules formed the first life forms but that does not mean that it didn’t happen. There are plenty of theories, as opposed to intelligent design which is completely baseless, unless you are willing to come forward with evidence?
          http://www.physorg.com/news202753830.html
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_life#Independent_emergence_on_Earth

          • Mike says:

            Mark, you continue to ask me for evidence, but you have yet to give one iota of evidence to prove your theory. I’m not interested in what “evolutionists” back up your theory – I’m interested in cold, hard proof.
            You’ve admitted that your side doesn’t know – they only assume – they only make assertions – that is not evidence. I can tell you exactly how the first molecules formed life – By intelligent design! I agree that our bodies are based upon chemistry, that’s a given – but what brought about chemistry? By your theory – it just happened by random chance – something that does not occur today. But intellient design is found around us everywhere – to show that it is far more plausible than evolution.

            • Mark says:

              Mike, one cannot transmit cold hard proof through the internet, as I said before go to school for 8 years or so (in biology) and then track down all the examples in an evolution textbook. At that point your opinion regarding evolution would start to have a small bit of weight.

              I can come to no other conclusion other than you are willfully ignorant and arguing with you is as good as talking to a wall. You unreasonably claim that evolution is wrong when in fact it is supported by many different aspects of modern science. Over the months that I have been here I have noticed that every single time someone asks you why your claims are true you ignore it and ask for the proof of evolution even though it is accepted by all reputable scientific organisations and has been known as fact for over 100 years.

              For anyone else reading this here is a link from the national academy of sciences regarding the claims of creationists and why they are wrong.
              http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/CreationistPerspective.html

              • Mike says:

                It’s strange that evolutionists will quote creationists all day long, and misrepresent them, but they never quote their own who disagree with them.

        • Zach says:

          Why can’t biochemistry make a mind?

    • Homme says:

      @Mike: I am eager to respond; it would be great if you could elaborate a bit more. For example, do you believe speciation does not occur? Do you believe natural selection, as a mechanism, is nonexistent? Et cetera.

      In the meantime, I can provide you with the following example. In 1975, Japanese scientists discovered bacteria capable of digesting some byproducts of nylon manufacture living in ponds containing waste water from a nearby nylon factory. The enzymes within the bacteria responsible for this ability did not exist in other strains or previous strains of the bacteria. The substances these enzymes were able to digest are not naturally occurring and did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935. Additionally, the enzymes were not able to digest any other substances. I believe that this is a quite tangible example of evolution; through mutation, a bacterium develops the ability to digest a new food source, and the new strain proceeds to outperform its worse-adapted relatives.

      This is a link to a relevant Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
      There are various journal references available through that link as well; I am choosing to link the Wikipedia article because I think it is a quite readable summary.

      • Mike says:

        Homme,

        I believe in “micro” evolution per your illustration. But “macro” evolution is an invention of men, never has and never will occur. as for natural selection, again, an invention of Mr. Darwin.

        • Homme says:

          @Mike: How do you explain the extensive fossil record? For example, consider this link, which is a list of primate fossils related to the evolution of humans:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
          (Note that the above link is a list of fossils that have particular importance. It is not a comprehensive list of fossils related to the evolution of humans, of which there are thousands.)

          The fossils clearly show a regression toward ancestors common with other species that exist today. Additionally, notice the various cranial capacity sizes. Where are the fossils of the humans that lived 4 million years ago (for example) if no “macro” evolution has occurred? The changes in time over the fossils are in no way “micro”; the closest thing to a human 4 million years ago was a member of the Australopithecus genus, which had a brain roughly a third the size of a modern human’s brain.

          • Mike says:

            Homme,

            first of all you are accepting explanations from evolutionists who are only looking for fossils that prove their theory (which they do not). Pieces of bone, jawbones, skulls, digits, etc. are far from proof that humans evolved. That is like taking Scriptures out of context to make them prove a preconceived doctrine (which all denominations do). But all that proves, is that they are able to make a passage say something that it never intended to say, as is the case of your so called “fossil” record.
            Macro evolution does not now occur, and has never occurred.

            • Homme says:

              @Mike: If you think that scientists are finding and systematically ignoring fossils that do not fit their theories, then you are proposing what is essentially a conspiracy theory. First, there is no evidence to believe that accusation in the first place. Second, even if some scientists were ignoring fossils on purpose, not all would be; some scientists would have chosen instead to publish their findings.

              This leads back to my original question: where are the fossils of the humans that lived 4 million years ago?

            • zntneo says:

              hmm only looking for fossils that prove their theory. Lets see if we predict that a fossil should be in a certain layer of rock and will be of a certain transitional type and we don’t find it will this not falsify the theory? (btw we have done this and we have found what we were expecting in the layer we where expecting with the type of fossil we were expecting)

  21. Mike says:

    Homme,

    First of all the universe is not millions or billions of years old – only thousands.
    Secondly, I didn’t say that anyone was purposefully ignoring the evidence, but when you stop to think about it, I guess there are some who are willfully withholding it, to make people think evolution is true. It’s not a conspiracy when they are out in the open purporting error. All one needs to do is look with open eyes at their wording, and you will know that they have found nothing to prove their case. It’s the fault of the average individual who blindly accepts it as truth. Just like the billions who blindly accept that one religion is as good as another.

    Concerning the fossil record that you believe proves your case. Mr. Gaylord Simpson wrote: “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost ALL orders of ALL classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate…” (1944).

    Or Mr. Dave Kitts: “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them” (1974).

    There are more quotes from evolutionists, but these should suffice to show that the prove is not there.

    • Homme says:

      @Mike: The universe is much older than a few thousand years. If the universe was only a few thousand years old, we would not be able to observe any other galaxies (all of which are greater than a few thousand light years away). Indeed, we would not even be able to observe the entire Milky Way galaxy, which is about 100,000 light years in diameter.

      Which again leads back to the question: where are the fossils of the humans that lived 4 million years ago?

      • Mike says:

        Homme,

        you appear to have tunnel vision. There are NO fossils of humans that lived 4 million years ago because there are NO fossils that old period. There are plenty of fossils of animals, birds, mammals and humans that have all lived at the same time over the past 6,000 years or more.

        The reason that we now see the light of the Milky Way and all other galaxies further away is because everything was created in 6 literal 24 hour days as an adult. In other words, the light was already here. So the light that we now see is only 6,000 years old.

        • Homme says:

          @Mike: Though you claim I am the one with tunnel vision, you are the one maintaining an unfalsifiable position:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

          If a ball hits a person in the back of the head, there is something quite absurd about that person concluding, “a ball with momentum in my direction which previously did not exist must have appeared midair a moment ago behind me.” Given that you have no interest in the view of the universe that the evidence suggests, I think our conversation is over.

          • Mike says:

            Homme,

            you have just explained yourself. You have not provided one shred of proof for your position. You and everyone else on this site “claim” fact – but never provide one iota of proof. I’m waiting. I understand more and more why none of you are able to defend your position in public debate. I would want to hide here as well, so no one found out that there is no support for my beliefs.
            It is truly sad that you all are so closed minded with your blind faith for evolution that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

            • Homme says:

              @Mike: Science is not in the business of providing proofs; that is the domain of mathematicians and logicians. Science is in the business of determining the most plausible hypothesis that explains observed facts, and then testing this hypothesis with additional data. Stated another way, a hypothesis must be falsifiable to have any place in scientific discussion.

              No possible evidence exists to disprove your claims; regardless of the evidence, you can fit it into the framework of your claims without any logical inconsistencies. For instance, you say that light that appears to be from millions of light-years away was created in transit only thousands of years ago.

              It is not just that no evidence exists that can disprove your claim, but such evidence can not conceivably exist. For this reason, you must at the very least admit that your position, regardless of its accuracy, is not a scientific one.

              Saying your position is unfalsifiable, though, is not the same thing as saying your position is true. I can maintain the position that in the year 400 AD, a unicorn appeared and disappeared a second later in orbit around the moon. No evidence could possibly prove my position wrong, but it is quite obviously not true.

              Similarly, the fact that no one can prove you wrong does not make you right by default. I encourage you to provide what you think constitutes as a “proof” for the correctness of your position.

              • Mike says:

                Homme,

                Excuse me but isn’t science knowledge acquired by careful observation, and then testing those observations (hypothesis) in order to prove them out? Isn’t that providing proof? At least that’s what science used to be about – but in our age of dumbing down knowledge, I guess you would want to throw the proof on someone else.

                I think that you are half correct about a hypothesis, yes it must be falsifiable, but it must also be proved true. Depending upon the evidence it could go either way.

                I never made the claim that my position was testable. It is no more testable than most of the claims of evolution. I do however, believe that my claim is plausible. Just as plausible as intelligent design.

                No one on these posts has provided any type of evidence for their statements. Everything has been conjecture, assumptions, etc. That’s all I’ve been doing, following the lead of everyone else. My purpose for originally coming to this site was to accept challenge for public debate. But no one has been willing to do so. Not able to defend their position, I suppose. Since no one is able or willing to debate existence of God, I have been involving myself in the discussions. Giving my opinions without support of evidence, like everyone else. I reserve the right to give evidence should anyone be willing to debate publically.

                • Homme says:

                  @Mike: No, science is not about providing proof. The word is often mixed into the vernacular of scientists, so the confusion is understandable, but the concept of “proof” has a very particular meaning in the philosophy of science (and philosophy in general). No a posteriori knowledge (knowledge from experience, which is the knowledge provided by science) pertains to the future. Put another way, no matter how many times I drop an apple, the fact that it dropped in the past does not (in and of itself) necessitate that it will continue to drop into the future. Of course, the assumption that our world operates in a consistent way is not only an assumption of science but also an assumption of daily human life, but this assumption is made on that basis that it utility, not on the basis that it provides proof.

                  It is not so much that I expect you, by default, to prove your points. Science is a battle of plausibility, and the most plausible hypothesis that explains the evidence is the winner. You only need to provide evidence that your position is more plausible for me to believe you. However, you have made it clear that you have no interest in evidence; despite overwhelming evidence of an old earth, you believe that it was created recently with only the appearance of being old. This is the reason I expect a proof from you. You are trying to convince me of something that runs contrary all available evidence (a posteriori knowledge), which means the only evidence left for you to use is a priori knowledge (proofs).

            • zntneo says:

              ok what would you consider evidence for evolution?

        • Mark says:

          Mike you really are stupid. You think God made up the laws of physics and then ran a exact simulation of 13 billion years in his head before he made the universe so that humans are unable to detect that anything is beyond the laws of nature.

          Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually the right one. The idea of some God making all this up is ridiculous.

          • Larry says:

            And why couldn’t God have created the laws of physics and then run a simulation–amazing what God can do with just one breath

    • jastiger says:

      Response to Mr Kitts. There are always going to be gaps in the evolutionary record. For example, I want you to come walk over to me. Except I only want you to move half the distance each time. You will NEVER reach me. EVER. But we will be able to see exactly where you stand and exactly how you got there and exactly where you will be when you take your next step.

      Furthermore, to dispel any illusion that you have “caught evolutionists”, every single organism both living and dead is an example of an intermediate form between one species and another. Every being is constantly growing, adapting, and evolving to fit its environment.

      That response can be applied to Mr. Simpson as well, you aren’t going to find some Oranga-human. Think of it as a tree, with each branch giving way to a more modern form of organism slowly over time.

      • Mike says:

        Jason,

        your assumptions that every single organism is in an intermediate form is a nice ‘theory,’ but that is all it is – a theory. The only way your “anti-theory” works is for eons of time to exist, but you have all the time available and you will never make it work. Sad how you have closed your eyes to reason. I was under the assumption that this was a sight for those who thought critically. Guess I was wrong.

        • jastiger says:

          Wait, what? Eons of time DID exist..where are you getting this evidence that such time periods did not exist?

          And the theory of gravtiy is STILL a theory. There is actually more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity (it breaks down when we look at the super sub atomic level and we still can’t exactly explain black holes), that doesn’t mean we dismiss it out of hand. It still WORKS.

          Discounting something as “just a theory” does nothing to diminish the reality of said theory as long as it stands up to scientific inquiry and evidence.

          • Mike says:

            Jason,

            Please show me how you are anyone else arrive at the “theory” that there are eons of time.

            Gravity is not a theory, it is proven law. Theories are speculative in nature, until proven to be otherwise. Gravity, unlike evolution has been proven to be more than speculative.

            I’m not discounting evolution is a mere “theory,” I’m discounting evolution because it is unproven, unfactual.

            • zntneo says:

              yes gravity IS a theory and it is a law. The theory of gravity explain the law of gravity. The theory of gravity currently accepted is general relativity.

        • zntneo says:

          I have been watching you argue with people on this site. I do not believe you even a) know what critical thinking is and b) would there be able to spot it when it slaps you in the face.

    • zntneo says:

      geez the old “where are tranistions forms” bs? I mean come on do i need to provide a list or something? Also, even if we through out the entire fossil record we can still see that evolution happened.

  22. jastiger says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

    Just click no that. Its wikipedia, so of course click on the sources for many of these articles and you’ll see tons and tons of proof. Actually didn’t someone already give you proof of evolution when we discussed nylon-eating bacteria? Nylon was only around after man created it. There is no way a nylon eating bacteria existed before the existence of nylon.

    Evidence of eons of time exist in carbon dating and geological study of the earths crust. We can see how mountanis were formed and go down down and down into the soil to see how the stratified earth reflects times passage.

    As for gravity it is the “Law of Gravity” but it is still at heart just a theory, just like germ theory. Gravity holds up for us 99.99999999999999% of the time here on earth, but that doesn’t mean that we coud still be fundamentally wrong about a part of the theory. A law is a theory that is univerally accepted and has stood the test of time, and is still at its foundation, speculative. Evolution is the same way. It has been weighed, measured, observed, and withstood the test of time.

    You are not discounting evolution because it is unfactual, you are discounting evolution because you not only do not understand it, you refuse to attempt to understand it, and when provided evidence (look at the evolution of bacteria!!) you hand wave it away and move the goal posts just a little bit further down the field.

  23. Kristina Clement says:

    Debating with a “simple” person is like wrestling a pig; you both get dirty… but, the pig likes it.

  24. Mike says:

    Jason said – “You are not discounting evolution because it is unfactual, you are discounting evolution because you not only do not understand it, you refuse to attempt to understand it, and when provided evidence (look at the evolution of bacteria!!) you hand wave it away and move the goal posts just a little bit further down the field.”

    This same statement applies to everyone on this site. Just exchange the word “evolution” for the words “intelligent design.”

    And thank you Kristina for the intelligent assessment of debating. Although I wouldn’t consider anyone here to be a “pig.”

    BTW zntneo, I’m not asking for anyone to throw out anything (fossils, nylon eating bacteria, et al). All I’m asking for is dealing with the evidence in a rational way, which evolution does not do. They throw out evidence that contradicts their “theory,” and only hold to that which supposedly supports it – that is being intellectually dishonest. If your theory is not supported, then admit it.

    Jason, I want to thank you for admitting intelligent design – that took a lot of courgage on your part to do so, but you should be applauded for doing something that goes against your nature.

    • Mark says:

      Why don’t we just settle everything right now. List right here all of your evidence that supports your hypothesis’ “the vast majority of scientists deliberately cover up evidence of intelligent design and promote false theories” and “intelligent design is the true description of the natural world.”

      As counter evidence I will list reports from the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most reputable scientific organizations in the world with almost 200 members having won the Nobel prize.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences

      dels.nas.edu/global/Consensus-Report
      dels.nas.edu/global/Study-Process

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent (why did you ignore this one when jastiger posted it?)

      download.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?&record_id=11876 (Specifically, starting on page 17)

      http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

  25. Mark says:

    Why don’t we just settle everything right now. List right here all of your evidence that supports your hypothesis’ “the vast majority of scientists deliberately cover up evidence of intelligent design and promote false theories” and “intelligent design is the true description of the natural world.”

    As counter evidence I will list reports from the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most reputable scientific organizations in the world with almost 200 members having won the Nobel prize.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences

    http://dels.nas.edu/global/Consensus-Report
    http://dels.nas.edu/global/Study-Process

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent (why did you ignore this one when jastiger posted it?)

    download.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?&record_id=11876 (Specifically, starting on page 17)

    http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

  26. jastiger says:

    When did I admit to the acceptance of the idea of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

  27. Mike says:

    Jason, you said, “Nylon was only around after man created it. There is no way a nylon eating bacteria existed before the existence of nylon.” You admitted that intellegence had to create something, that it didn’t just evolve over eons of time. This is true of everything in life. There is not one case of something that now exists, coming about by the process of evolution. As you have pointed out, it was CREATED. Thank you for your honesty.

    • Homme says:

      @Mike: Nylon was created my man. Bacteria capable of digesting nylon evolved.

      • jastiger says:

        Aye, so by your way of reasoning nylon-eating bacteria must have been made in god’s image. god made man who made nylon which then created through evolution nylon eating bacteria. Right?

        The point is, the fact that nylon was created through scientific research does not mean that humanity was created by divine inspiration.

        • Mike says:

          Both Homme and Jason, love to skirt the issue that intelligent design is involved in everthing that we see, feel, hear, smell and taste. Jason admitted that intelligent design CREATED nylon. It is a given that bacteria “evolves” to become resistant to antibiotics, or even to eat nylon or hydrocarbons. Micro-evolution was created by an intelligent being, just a nylon was. But there is no such thing as Macro-evolution, which has never been proved, nor can it be. You can hypothesize all day long, but you can never prove it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s