The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

the body is the tool for spirit's expression.

Your body is the tool for your brain's expression. We have known for some time if you damage your brain you can lose certain functions and even your personality. A soul would need a brain to recall your memories, your personality, which would negate it's supernatural properties.
All a soul is man's attempt to pretend he can live forever, thus making him a special snowflake among all other life.

a reply to: cooperton

I am because my brain is sending and receiving electrical signals and creating chemical reactions allowing me to feel pain or pleasure. Without my brain "I am" is no more.

originally posted by: flyingfish

Your body is the tool for your brain's expression. We have known for some time if you damage your brain you can lose certain functions and even your personality. A soul would need a brain to recall your memories, your personality, which would negate it's supernatural properties.
All a soul is man's attempt to pretend he can live forever, thus making him a special snowflake among all other life.

Dr. Eben Alexander, a Harvard Neurosurgeon, had his cerebral cortex shut down due to an infection; Despite complete shutdown of the part of the brain that allows higher cognition, he became aware of an amazing new spiritual frontier:

“My experience showed me that the death of the
body and the brain are not the end of
consciousness, that human experience continues
beyond the grave. More important, it continues
under the gaze of a God who loves and cares
about each one of us and about where the universe
itself and all the beings within it are ultimately
going.”

There are countless other descriptions of out-of-body experiences that clearly indicate that our conscious awareness is not dependent on the body.

a reply to: cooperton

Dr. Alexander's story has been debunked. Just like the young child who claimed to have gone to heaven and his parents got a book written about it.

Alexander arrived in 2008. Dr. Laura Potter explains that she "had to make the decision to just place him in a chemically induced coma." But that's not how Alexander tells it, according to the Esquire investigation:

In Proof of Heaven, Alexander writes that he spent seven days in "a coma caused by a rare case of E. coli bacterial meningitis." There is no indication in the book that it was Laura Potter, and not bacterial meningitis, that induced his coma, or that the physicians in the ICU maintained his coma in the days that followed through the use of anesthetics. Alexander also writes that during his week in the ICU he was present "in body alone," that the bacterial assault had left him with an "all-but-destroyed brain." He notes that by conventional scientific understanding, "if you don't have a working brain, you can't be conscious," and a key point of his argument for the reality of the realms he claims to have visited is that his memories could not have been hallucinations, since he didn't possess a brain capable of creating even a hallucinatory conscious experience.

I ask Potter whether the manic, agitated state that Alexander exhibited whenever they weaned him off his anesthetics during his first days of coma would meet her definition of conscious.

"Yes," she says. "Conscious but delirious."


In interviews in the piece, Alexander asks Esquire's Dittrich not to bring up the discrepancies in his story. 

www.thewire.com...

Having dreams and hallucinations while alive is not proof of life after death. He was in a chemically induced coma which means his brain was still receiving signals. Sorry. Nice try though.

a reply to: cooperton

Funny you mention out of body experiences. Did those people still have a body? Yes they did. Therefore there is zero evidence that concsiousness exists separate from the body.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Do you know if there's something physiological that people who have had these "near death" experiences share the same sorts of "dreams"? (like seeing dead relatives, euphoric feelings, etc)

a reply to: WASTYT

Well some studies have happened into this ....

a reply to: WASTYT

It's not the same for everybody. It entirely depends on your belief system. Hindus don't report seeing Jesus but Christians do. It's what's in the mind. Seeing dead relatives? Some do some don't. Some have pleasant experiences some describe them as scary. Some have claimed to see heaven as a castle with gold and lavish buildings others have described going into space and travelling through the cosmos, even others reported a void or nothing.

Again of interest even if you are intellectually not ready:

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain

Physicist Freeman Dyson believes the cosmos is suffused with consciousness, from the grandest level to the most minute dimensions. If it is, why aren’t we aware of it? - See more at: www.superconsciousness.com...

"Consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm. Consciousness cannot, therefore, be identical with the brain."

See whole article here:
www.superconsciousness.com...


But maybe some of you are right - Maybe Intelligent Design is not for Humans like you - Maybe it is still reserved to those
hypothetical aliens you claim do not exist - And for you Human there is only Evolution and you will have to evolve much
furter to see the Intelligent Design of the universe you live in.



“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”
― Isaac Newton

“In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.”
― Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

“The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.” ― Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolutio

“The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.”
― William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design

“The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.” ― Michael J. Behe

“Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

“That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy.”
― Jonathan Swift

“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role in the origin of the system... We find such systems within living organisms.”
― Scott A. Minnich

a reply to: Joecanada11

True, but You seem to be describing the post experience interpretation of the visions. For instance the people who see a religious figure will explain it in terms of their belief system. The question is more about them seeing a religious figure to begin with.

I almost died once(clinically dead for 5 minutes) and all I remember from that experience was a big football game. I guess that proves that heaven is a football field. Thank goodness! I was worried it would end up being something like Nascar or cockfighting.

originally posted by: Barcs
I almost died once(clinically dead for 5 minutes) and all I remember from that experience was a big football game. I guess that proves that heaven is a football field. Thank goodness! I was worried it would end up being something like Nascar or cockfighting.

That's such bulls#. I didn't get anything when I died.mit was only a little under 3 minutes the first time and about 4 the last time though. Maybe I needed to hit the 5 minute mark to get good visuals? I don't remember anything from about a minute before I went down until I came to with the paramedics working on me. Such a jip. I guess I should be glad I did t get NASCAR so In hindsight it could have been much worse.

a reply to: Barcs

OK Barks cut the chase! Are you gonna tell us what team god roots for? Please don't let it be the Broncos..

I get so annoyed by these topics, and by the dogmatic individuals who sit on each side of the debate. Clearly, Young Earth Creationism is bunk, we all know that. However, the iron-fisted rule of Neo-Darwinism has severe limitations, and itself severely limits the SCOPE OF OUR ENQUIRIES.

We should be hammering out research in consciousness studies, in the science of electro-gravitic-magnetic fields, and whatnot, with OPEN MINDS, taking into account that we can't, at this time, prove whether there is a 'higher power' which is intelligently involved in the creation/maintenance/programming of the Universe, and life as we know it.

I honestly believe that the only intellectually honest position in science, when it comes to the question of whether there is a 'God', is open-minded & firmly held AGNOSTICISM, until such a time as Humanity has proven, one way or the other, that God exists or does not.

Personally, I am of the opinion that there is a God, and that He created the Universe, preparing the principles of physics, and guiding the evolution of life - providing the 'spark', or the 'breath' of life at the critical moment in the developing chemistry. I believe that He creates in a dreamlike way, envisioning new forms & guiding the development of such, or observing spontaneous forms as they arise according to the principles laid down at 'the beginning'.

I believe that this view (which I term 'The Dreamtime Creator' model, and which is fully distinct & separate from Young Earth Creationism) is perfectly compatible with science as we know it, but I concede that I cannot prove it empirically. I therefore hold it as a personal belief, and there it stays, until proof is possible, one way or the other. In truth I can't see this particular sort of viewpoint as having any negative effect on our scientific investigations - if people believe in the Dreamtime Creator model, it won't make any difference to their ability to carry out research based in the scientific method, nor will it make a difference to the data that they collect, or to their analysis of that which we've been collecting for hundreds of years now. People with such a belief can be perfectly capable of adding useful material to our library of scientific knowledge. They may be capable of imagining new experiments which are somewhat outside the box, and that could only be a good thing overall, if the scientific method & analysis are sound. There would be no need to be critical of their work simply as the result of a harmless belief in what goes on 'behind the scenes' of our evolving Universe.

What can hamper our progress is dogmatic inflexibility on either side of the argument.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I get so annoyed by these topics, and by the dogmatic individuals who sit on each side of the debate. Clearly, Young Earth Creationism is bunk, we all know that. However, the iron-fisted rule of Neo-Darwinism has severe limitations, and itself severely limits the SCOPE OF OUR ENQUIRIES.

That really isn't true about the science side of the issue. If you review the responses to Creationists, the majority of responses include citations from recognized journals on the topic. Science is about discovery and evidence - that's it. It's not dogmatic and it certainly is not a religion. The discovery part is an ongoing process of research. The evidence part is data that has been acquired and analyzed during the discovery process. The methods are peer-reviewed and any errors or omissions are promptly reported to the editor.

I recognize that the topic gets heated at times - but it's all in good fun and an effort to teach and to learn. That said, of course the science side is absolutely, positively, indisputably correct!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I get so annoyed by these topics, and by the dogmatic individuals who sit on each side of the debate. Clearly, Young Earth Creationism is bunk, we all know that. However, the iron-fisted rule of Neo-Darwinism has severe limitations, and itself severely limits the SCOPE OF OUR ENQUIRIES.

That really isn't true about the science side of the issue. If you review the responses to Creationists, the majority of responses include citations from recognized journals on the topic. Science is about discovery and evidence - that's it. It's not dogmatic and it certainly is not a religion. The discovery part is an ongoing process of research. The evidence part is data that has been acquired and analyzed during the discovery process. The methods are peer-reviewed and any errors or omissions are promptly reported to the editor.

I recognize that the topic gets heated at times - but it's all in good fun and an effort to teach and to learn. That said, of course the science side is absolutely, positively, indisputably correct!

True WHEN it is true - But science itself evolves and what is true one day may not be true in the future. In Galileo's time
it was considered true that the sun revolved around the Earth - not true now. Einstein's theories changed Man's view of the
universe and it is conceivable that a future science may alter Einstein's universe.

Intelligent Design, using 'my loose interpretation of it', is science plain and simple - And simply says that all of the existence
we know of is organized in intelligent patterns of design and it is science that is proving this all the time. The fact that
Creationists like to extend the concept to indicate that if there is intelligent design there must be an 'intelligent designer'
does not hold - It is simply possible that the universe itself possesses an inherent intelligence in its matrix - Intelligent
Design is proven to the extent that verifiable science proves it.

Agine this is why I hold, the apparently unpopular view, that Evoulutin is a form of Intelligent Design - It tries to show
how and sometimes theorizes as to why, an apparent evolutionary process is occurring - But as we have seen here, there
is much that can be questioned in the theory - too many losse ends - same could be said about Intelligent Design.

But I am an intelligence junkie and 'ScienceFictionalist' who believes that all logical scenarios should be explored
until.........forever.

Now let's see what an alien might have to say:

You Are The Universe Experiencing Itself.




“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” ― Carl Sagan, Cosmos







"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"

a reply to: AlienView

True WHEN it is true - But science itself evolves and what is true one day may not be true in the future. In Galileo's time it was considered true that the sun revolved around the Earth - not true now. Einstein's theories changed Man's view of the universe and it is conceivable that a future science may alter Einstein's universe.

Yes, and that's exactly what I said and everyone else on the science side said: science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. But one discovery is not the end of the road. It's an ongoing process. You're using the word "true" like it's dogma, or the Bible. Each discovery lays down the groundwork for more discoveries. From penicillin as an antibiotic came a whole revolution in antibiotic therapies. From the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum came x-rays, NMR, MRI - a whole body of knowledge - which will progress even more over time.

Science is never a closed book. The book is always open to write more chapters.

As for intelligent design, it's an opinion which has no evidence. And that's fine as long as you recognize that you have no evidence. Personally, I don't care one way or the other - if there's a creator that's fine, if there isn't, that's okay too. But until there's hard data that can be analyzed and reviewed, intelligent design is simply nothing of interest to science.

a reply to: Barcs

PLEASE, God no - I despise football!

a reply to: Phantom423

Exactly Rugby is a superior game

originally posted by: AlienView
Again of interest even if you are intellectually not ready:

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain

Physicist Freeman Dyson believes the cosmos is suffused with consciousness, from the grandest level to the most minute dimensions. If it is, why aren’t we aware of it? - See more at: www.superconsciousness.com...

"Consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm. Consciousness cannot, therefore, be identical with the brain."

See whole article here:
www.superconsciousness.com...


But maybe some of you are right - Maybe Intelligent Design is not for Humans like you - Maybe it is still reserved to those
hypothetical aliens you claim do not exist - And for you Human there is only Evolution and you will have to evolve much
furter to see the Intelligent Design of the universe you live in.



“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”
― Isaac Newton

“In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.”
― Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

“The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.” ― Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolutio

“The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.”
― William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design

“The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.” ― Michael J. Behe

“Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

“That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy.”
― Jonathan Swift

“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role in the origin of the system... We find such systems within living organisms.”
― Scott A. Minnich

quotes are useless. we want data, reproducible data that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that intelligent design is the superior theory. substantiate or suffocate, publish or perish. and posting other peoples opinions doesnt count as data.