Why do evolutionists answer only those questions that are answerable. But simply fail to answer when they ...?

Question

can't find one. I have earlier posted one question on using religious point of view. No one answered the question. While posting that question I thought evolutionists did had a proper answer for my question. But no one answered. I was really open to get a good explanation. Why? It seems to me evolutionists don't have a proper explanation for it. If yes, then stop denying god using evolution. This is more dnagerous than religion. If we just accept there is nothing more than body then we have constantly fight with each other. Live with insecurity, jealously and constant competition.
If we see the religious point of view it is more prospective for life and we there is no reason for any sin as well. Most important, we never have to consider ourselves as some finite beings. Why are we not considering all aspects before simply denying god?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asf7tHsRq4FGB7bvzQAQBXsgBgx.?qid=20070226122756AAwl2xB

The theory of soul is not cooked by me. if you read either hindusim or buddhism they have a clear definition of soul and body is a separate entity from soul. Soul takes up the bodyn based on its past actions. It seems all of them who are saying i have created something, obviously you nhaven't read any religion. I have read both religion and science. I was putting things very simply to prove how religion could be precisely correct.

I think it would be fair to add one more point. It seems that the answers are based on the assumption that I am trying to prove some religion as correct. you are totally wrong. I see the point clearly now. Obviously your religion has been totally trashed by evolution theory. You don't like the idea of any other religions to be true either just because that doesn't belong to you. That is what is open minded all about. As long as your ego is satisfied accept anythin. Otherwise trash it. Great people! Great society! I have two words for you all. YOUR karma.

Moiraes Fate: I know mind is mind and I don't say that mind is soul either. Neither the religions I was pointing to say so. All I wanted to say was there are things that cannot be rooted to body.
One more point. When darwin proposed evolution it was just a theory. Was there a strong proof? No. But some scientiests BELIEVED it and later proved that as correct. Same could be the case here. My belief lies in the point that some religious texts happened to already have mentioned very clearly mentioned that there is spmething called soul and that it is separate entity from body and is eternal.
Unless you can deny what I said with some good reasoning you can't reject it either. Otherwise I would say you are superstitious about your beliefs. Not simply by saying that science goes with proofs.

J-boy: I have requestioned your answer. Please look for it.

I don't know how many of you come back and see your answers again, but I will have one last statement of mine. I am again reiterating that I was not trying to prove any religion as more worthy. I was really trying to see a better form of life. I know what morals are. To be honest accept what many evolutionsts(or wahtever the you term it) there is less scope for morals and more scope for racial fights, jealousy and what not. I was looking for a better form of life and some scriptures happen to give me better answer for that and I used them as a basis to my belief. If I had said that as my opinions then you could start arguing by saying that there is no basis for my statement and that I was assuming manhy things. If you have only seen the brighter side of what i said many of you wouldn't have been that rude.

Answer 1

If you come up with a theory based on different levels of 'connectivity to the souls' of different animals, you're not going to get many intelligent responses.

Answer 2

Only the religious think that Atheists are denying god. To deny something, you have to admit it exists. Atheists DO NOT believe in any god. Supporters of evolution (evolutionists is not a word) subscribe to scientific methods of thought, not religious ones.

The term soul is a religious thing. It is not secular and has no place in secular systems. Soul is not a part of evolution though YOU are trying to make it so.

You are assuming that a soul exists when most will tell you it does not. When the body dies, the energy is given off as heat and the body goes cold. No soul.

Human beings are no better than any other animals, which is what you seem to be attempting to claim. We are all animals. We all occupy a different nich on the planets cycle of life. But we are not above them. Just look at our behavior to see why thats so.

The dispute with evolution against religion is not one that those of the secular persuation use, only the religious.

Rather, evolution supporters use evolution to show that the bible is a lie in at least one place which causes Christians to question.

Mind is not a soul. Mind is the mind. Theres nothing divine about it. You already know what a conscious act is, even if you try to keep tying it into your religion.

Everything that goes on in the human mind is because of the brain, not the soul. Again, soul is a religious concept, not a secular one. If you wish to prove soul, then you first have to prove religion which you can't do because there is no proof.

Soul is YOUR assumption, no one elses.

Answer 3

Your previous post was a little far out there and obviously something you had just thought up out of thin air. It had nothing to do with science or evolution really. Science relies on using the scientific method not inventing pretty stories. There is nothing against God about evolution, that is your interpretation. Many people who believe in God also believe in evolution. Evolution is morally neutral and not about God or religion. Some religious people feel evolution denies God because it conflicts their interpretation of God or the Bible. Is it not possible your interpretation is wrong? Have you consider this? I was a biology major, I am not an evolutionary scientist by any means, but I do find the evidence for evolution compelling. I also know it is not part of some vast scientist sponsored conspiracy to deny God. Scientists come in all faiths as well as no faiths. They are constantly examining and re-examining evidence and arguing about it. This is how progress is made in science. If evolutionary theory couldn't hold up or someone had a theory that better fit the facts they would advance it and make a fortune doing so. So far the evidence continues to point to evolution being correct although the exact mechanisms still need to be worked out.

Answer 4

Well, you make a lot of assumptions in your post. You assume that people who see evolution as probable want to deny god. I think it's more likely that they simply see god as irrelevent. Most of us don't believe there is such a thing as sin. I find it terribly insulting that people think society would fall apart without god. it wouldn't. Most atheists are caring, kind, respectful people.

Evolution and creation are not two answers to the same question. They are answers to two different questions.

Science asks the question, "What is most likely to have happened given the physical evidence we are aware of right now?" Evolution answers that question very, very well right now. Does it answer all questions right now? No. Will it change? Yes. Evolution is not set in stone, just as any science is not set in stone. It will be re-evaluated and adjusted in the light of future evidence. That's what's beautiful about science.

Religion asks the questions, "Who are we? Where do we come from? Why are we here?" These are not questions that can really have an answer in the same way as scientific questions can. Over many millenia, people have come up with many many answers to these questions. These answers have been projected onto the world around us in the form of creation stories, moralities and religions.

You cannot effectively compare the two because they are not really compatible. Science is one complete system. Religion is another complete system. They both use language and logic in mutually exclusive ways.

Asking where the soul fits into evolution or asking someone to scientifically prove that SOUL is not involved in evolution is ridiculous. It would be like asking someone to fix a car using only parts from an old aquarium.

Answer 5

I'd say the reason you haven't received answers from evolutionists is that your question is terribly naive and almost impossible to form into something that can be answered rationally and scientifically. It's as if you'd asked where the Easter Bunny gets all the chocolate.

It's clear that you know very little about the mechanics and details of what evolution is and how it works. You seem, for instance, to be talking about something called Lamarckism, which is completely discredited.

The stuff about souls - well, that's the Easter Bunny's chocolate all over again. There really is no such thing, and if you think hard about what you mean by 'soul', I suspect you'll wind up in a circular explanation.

Another thing - it took about half a billion years after life began before multi-cellular organisms arose. It seems pretty clear that there were huge problems involved in making the change, and evolution had to wait for some very lucky flukes to occur before bunches of cells could live together as a single microscopic critter. If this was the single-celled 'soul' striving to better itself, it was pretty half-hearted. In fact, most living things on the planet - in both numbers and sheer volume - are still single cells.

Evolution is not driven by the aspirations of 'souls', but by the arrival of new proteins that make possible new organisms which are able to survive better than their predecessors. Did you know that in the short time since humans invented these substances, new microbes have evolved that eat nylon and high explosives? These explosives didn't exist on Earth just a few decades ago, and already there are bacteria that have evolved the enzymes necessary to digest them!

(And that's not to mention all the bacteria that have evolved resistance to antibiotics, or the insects that have become resistant to pesticides.)

You may argue that I don't know what 'souls' are, but the point is that evolution doesn't need souls to function. It works just fine without them. It just takes a long time, which is why you don't get to see it happen. But you can find the forensic evidence if you look for it: did you know that one of your chromosomes is identical - letter-perfect! - to two chimpanzee chromosomes stuck together, end-to-end? Millions of years ago one of our proto-human ancestors was born with this 'genetic defect' that its other primate cousins didn't have. By sheer luck all of us are descended from that proto-human, and so we have one fewer chromosome than chimps, gorillas and gibbons - even though all the genes are still present.

CD

Answer 6

In my view, people will only find all the answers when they realise that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. My belief is that God is the why, evolution is the how. As far as the Bible explanation of creation goes, I would have thought it well known that the Bible merely uses metaphors and alegories to explain what are very complex issues.

There is a large crossover group of people who subscribe to both religion and science. The more these people can understand that these two fields are just different ways to look for answers to the same questions -- why are we here, what is the meaning etc -- the closer we will come to more conclusive answers.

But nobody will ever have all the answers, because there are more than one solution to any of these questions. Life, the universe and everything are fair to complex and complicated to be defined with a single answer sheet.

Answer 7

your viewpoint of evolution seems rather naieve. Humanity has had religion almost from the get go and we've been fighting for just as long. How you can just assume evolution is equally as dangerous when it has had less than 1/20th of the time to influence the thoughts of the world that religion has. Also Religion for much of it's time had totality, science must contend with religion, so we may never know how things would have workjed out if evolution had humanity's "complete" attention the way religion did.

And there's no reason why we can't have perspective and goals without God, many Atheists do.

And I answered your question earlier.

Answer 8

Hi dear..
you said in your question: "Why are we not considering all aspects before simply denying god?".

The problem with the notion of "god" is that it's not an empirical knowledge, in other words, no one can prove it by experiment and science and scientific knowledge acknowledges only those theories that are proved empirically (experimentally). Not only science, but law as well doesn't appreciate the notion of "god" that much. Let's say you were asked by a detective where you were when a crime was committed and you would say, you were at home at the time, and you wouldn't have any proof other than swearing to god that you were at home, does that count?

That's the problem with the notion of god, wheather we believe in it or not, we can't count on it, at least for the above reasons.

I hope this helped in answering your question.

Answer 9

maybe there are less evollutionists athiest on in this section than you think?
I can ask the same question twice and get different people to answer. each time.
maybe they just werent online when you posted?

how many people actually GO back 7 pages and answer questions from two days ago? How many will actually search a persons archives and add comments? or email a very old question and answer to someone that posted?

i think some just come here to harrass others. just for kicks.
instead of having TRUE statements and opinions to answer other questions.

Answer 10

An atheist is simply someone who believes a god or gods do not exist. It does not follow that an atheist is responsible for insecurity, jealously, sin and constant competition in this world.

What if we ARE finite beings? Would you want to believe that we are not just for the feel good factor ?

There is no evidence for god. It is as simple as that.