You cannot create a soul it is a living entity.

I have no idea, I thought you knew. I know what things that don't look like they were made by God look like though: they're things which, when investigated scientifically, don't require God to be included in the description of how they work or where they came from.


Yes, we are just here. No-one gets to choose. Do you think people do get to choose whether they are here then jelly? I'm not sure where you're going with that one.


No of course not. Faith is belief in the absence of logic or evidence - i.e. irrational belief.


The Big Bang is an extremely - indeed, overwhelmingly - well-evidenced theory. 'Proven' is not a term in scientific parlance; if it was, then ideas would become sacred and impossible to throw out if required; all facts in science are subject to further data.


I'm sorry, I still suspect that you only think you do. If you did understand these terms, then you would know that a scientific theory is not 'just' an idea, but a synthesis of carefully-made observations and testable predictions. The heliocentric (Earth going round sun) theory of our solar system is still 'only' a theory, despite the fact that we can now test it in a thousand different ways, and that many of the things humans do rely on it being true. This is not to say that all scientific theories are equally well-evidenced - they're not - but what you're still doing is mistaking the jargon term 'theory' for its everyday counterpart, which can mean 'guess'. A scientific theory is not a guess.


There are those unscientific words again, 'proven' and 'guess'. Science deals only in testing hypotheses, collecting evidence and constructing and testing theory with more hypotheses. And this approach to the past - depending on the question - is just as applicable as to the present. Evidence-gathering. Simply put (I'm assuming you're talking about the Big Bang), the approach is not 'let's all try to guess what happened long ago', but 'at present, there are several competing theories which each adequately explain current observations. So let's try to make predictions from each of those theories to try to disprove them, and then make new observations. Then we can discard the inadequate theories.' In the case of the Big Bang, the smoking gun (almost literally) was the discovery of microwave background radiation, which was predicted by the BB model and not its competing theories (for instance the Steady State theory), and which gave us an age of the universe which correlated with the theory. BB model also explains other features of the universe with a high degree of accuracy, and hypotheses continue to be generated by the theory and tested against experimental observation. As the theory is refined, so the evidence mounts.


I hope I've shown that there are. There are a few scientific theories a present which adequately explain current observations, but which generate hypotheses we are as yet technologically unable to test (string theory, M-theory, Copenhagen vs Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, etc.); these each have different things going for them, and are not claimed to be on a par with BB theory, evolutionary theory, or heliocentrism (except by non-scientists who misunderstand them).


The theory is correctly taught as an extremely well-evidenced theory which best explains all of our current observations, and is being continually supported by new ones. This is not a double standard, as I've explained.


Interesting. Which particular DNA-related discoveries are you still waiting before you reject God and the soul? Because I rather think the field is more advanced than you think. And, to say once again, it certainly hasn't stalled, which puts your premise in the realms of yet another 'what if', rather than a valid argument.

But I really would appreciate you being as precise as possible in stating which DNA-related discoveries you're waiting for before admitting you were mistaken.

I'm certainly not claiming you can. I don't even have any sort of clue what one is, other than yet another lazy explanation for things someone feels are not yet adequately explained.

Um...what? Okay, so you counter what I said with just a bit of sarcasm...which leads me to think you don't want me to bring up the Bible in this conversation...which is ridiculous. Let me quote post #7 by you:



So, you can use the Bible as a reference point for your belief system, yet I can't reference the Bible when critiquing that same system? No big deal. I only used the word ONCE in my post--take it out. Here is my sentence without the word in it:



If you actually have a way to refute my criticism of your flawed chain of logic, please let me know. But sarcasm without substance just makes you look sophomoric.

And please explain further this statement by you, danielost:



I would truly love to see a detailed account of your first moments alive. As would many others, I'm sure. And researchers.

So, you can use the Bible as a reference point for your belief system, yet I can't reference the Bible when critiquing that same system? No big deal. I only used the word ONCE in my post--take it out. Here is my sentence without the word in it:
=================================================================


No you were crying that I was using science to discredit science and not the bible so I said go ahead and use the bible.

I would truly love to see a detailed account of your first moments alive. As would many others, I'm sure. And researchers.


--------------------

that's it nothing more.

...and you still have not refuted anything from my original post. I simply made a reference to the Bible because you stated, as I already quoted, that your view of the creation of life is derived from that source material. Because you fail to actually reply to any of my direct criticism, I'll reiterate that my post was pointing out a hole in your logic. However, as your two replies have amounted to "Ok go ahead and use the bible to prove the lack of God," and "No you were crying that I was using science to discredit science and not the bible so I said go ahead and use the bible"--neither of which disagree with what I said--I'll assume we agree that your logic is flawed.

Any counter? Or are you just going to merely state that I'm "crying?" Go ahead and keep slandering my comments, because all the while you fail to invalidate a word of it.

And please go into further detail about your first moments of life because that adds much insight into your understanding of science.

EDIT: Okay, your following post came up as I typed this. If you wish to cease the conversation with me, I can leave the thread alone so you can continue with others. I won't apologize for my comments; that said, I don't wish to cause aggression as it is merely a discussion, debate, or what have you.

You state that the flaw in my logic is to use science to show science is wrong. The flaw in your logic is that is exactly what you are supposed to do to prove science wrong or right.

Actually, no, that's not what I said. You are taking it out of context.

Yes, science is testable and thus can be verified. "Was life created or was life spontaneous?" Well, we can't create life spontaneously in the lab under the conditions for which we, or science, believe it first arose, so it must have been created...and supposedly by a creator, right?

That's the flaw: How do you test that hypothesis? One hypothesis you can test, the other you cannot. So the one that is testable, because it fails to yield results you default to the other, untestable, hypothesis as valid...that's flawed logic.

Again, you are holding one to standards that you do not apply to the other.

That was my point: If you are using scientific reasoning to discredit the current scientific view of how life arose "spontaneously," as your header terms, then you have to also apply that same scientific reasoning to the alternative that you provided--that life was created. Why don't you apply your same scientific critique of spontaneous life to created life? If you are taking a scientific approach to one then you must also apply it to the other. Otherwise it appears you have a bias view...and in science they pretty much hope you look at things objectively.

You can continue to attempt to dismantle the "spontaneous life" hypothesis all you want; doing so does not lend credence to the idea of "created life."

I don't know how life was created; I was under the impression that the verdict is still out. But as one that has yet to make up their mind, you fail to sway me as all your posts have done is lead me to believe that you have no real support for the idea that life was created. It's like when politicians try to build their case by merely making attacks against the other candidate's history. It's much more persuasive when they provide reasons for why they should be elected as oppose to reasons why the other guy shouldn't be.

I don't have a stance when it comes to if life was created or was spontaneous. You seem to believe it was created, yet you provide no support for that view. What would be persuasive is if you were to actually use science to build your case, which is:

Then try this one on for size

All life on this planet is related. We all have the same basic DNA. The only difference is what makes us humans and worms worms.


Now if life was spontaneous how come it hasn't happened a million times or even just twice. Even the animals with copper based blood has the same DNA that you and I do.


However if life had to be created. Then the being/person/god would only do it once. Yes I have read about those cell like structures raining down from space. but these things are not living are they.


It is like them saying that man stood up to see over the grass. If that is so and it was so good how come non of the other small animals didn't. We are the only creatures that walk on the hind legs only and upright. With a slight exception of penguins. Which it seems prefer to slide on their bellies it is faster for them to do that.

Really Kangeroo's are bipedal too you know, as are all birds. There are disadvantages to being quadrapedal as well.

read it again I said bipedal and walks up right. the only bird that walks upright at all is the penquin. There is another ape that walks up right but they still use their arms for locomotion. Kangeroos stand up right but they do not move upright.


and really the only birds that can be called bipedals are the ones that don't fly.

Wrong, how does the ostrich walk if not upright? Kangaroos do move upright, they just have a different method of locomotion.
Kangaroo rats and springhares are both also bipedal.
Many dinosaurs were also bipedal.

look at an ostrich again you will see that it's body is perpendiculer to the ground the only upright part of the bird is it's kneck.

and bears walk up right too. You forgot that one.

when a kangaroo is moving for distance again it's body is perpendiculer to the ground. They may move one or two steps up right but their legs/feet are not designed for walking far. same with the rat.

They are still bipedal. The angle of the body does not prevent them being upright. If they were not upright they would on the floor.
It is just they have a far more efficent movement method. Ours is not so good.
Your arguement still holds no ground.

It's my opinion that the complexities we see here are the result of the Supreme Architect!

But you see I qualified my statement by saying walks on hind legs and upright. Except for the penquin no bird walks upright. and the birds that fly are not bipeds. They use all for limbs for locomotion. and since penquins fly under water.

upright is when your able to see the chest straight on and not hidden so that preditors can't rip it out easily.

That does not stop your definition being wrong. All birds are bipedal, it means walking on two legs. All birds are bipedal.
Penguins do not fly underwater, it is swimming, that is like saying rays fly underwater. The action may look similar but it is infact complete different.



Don't try to teach me animal physiology, I can assure you I know it to a far superior level than you do.
The are still upright.

what ever.

Ahh, I see your debate skills have reached a new level.

Really? If he did he feel he didn't do a very good job.

No, 1 I don't have any debate skills. didn't take debate. 2. Someone who knows everything can't be wrong. So there is no since in debating him/her/whatever. birds use their wings to fly just as a deer uses it's front limbs to walk. There are only two upright creatures on the planet and only one of them only uses his back limbs to move around. the other one uses his front limbs to walk with. birds do not walk upright yes they use only two legs to walk on but the other two are used to fly with.


Penguins do swim. But the nature shows I have been watching have been saying that it is more like flying than swimming.

I don't know everything, but I am a zoologist, so I'm pretty confident about this, where as you clearly have limited biological knowledge.
They are wings, not legs, they are further removed from legs than human arms are.
Where did you learn this? Bipedal animals are upright. Flying in birds is no relation to bipedalism. They walk on two feet, that is the definition of bipedalism. The gait is unimportant, flight is unimportant. If you wish to debate this read this article from Warwick university, the artcle is a scientific one about diabetes, but it does specifically state that the ostrichs are upright
Upright Ostrich.
I suggest you watch better nature shows. It is like swimming with the wings being used as pectoral fins to give movement. Rays also swim like this, many small reef fish use their pectoral fins for propulsion over using the caudal fins, like the puffer fishes and cowfishes.

I think you mean failed not feel.


I don't think he failed at his job.

ok what ever. I use the idea that if it's body is in the same position as a dog or a cat or a deer I do not consider that to be upright.


And using your thing about how scientists say this and that. Then according to science a 13 year old girl is an adult, (was going to use full grown but since they are still growing that wouldn't be right)since she can have a child or at least most 13 year old girls can have children. not likely but capable of it.

Erm, no I don't. Read the whole sentance.

You idea is wrong. What I stated is fact.
Biologically yes, that is not the same as legally. Whats your point?

I just yahood animals that walk upright the only animal they seem to think that walks up right are humans. with the exception of a dog that only had two legs.


http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=animals+t...start=1&b=1

I did read the whole thing about 10 times


so either you meant failed instead of feel or you meant I feel instead of he feel.


In either case I don't think that he did a bad job. Everything seems to work.

Erm did you read the whole lifescience article? It says that walking upright distinguishes us from other apes.

but as I said there is another ape that walks upright. Again using your theme it doesn't matter that it still uses it's front limbs for locomotion.

Not currently there isn't.
Erm your not good at reading are you. I said you walk upright if you are bipedal and wings do not affect walking. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Do you chose just to read the odd few words and ignore the rest?

I do not remember it's name but it wades so it stands upright so it can get into deeper water. It lives in mangrove swamps I think in Indonisia.

right you said upright and walk on two legs.


I said upright and walk on two legs.


You however include all of the birds that walk stooped over and the kangaroo that hopes stooped over. The only birds that do not walk stooped over are penguins and that is probable to prevent as much heat loss at least for the ones that live in antarctica.


I do not.


I think your mistaking bidedal motion with upright motion.

They has what is known as limited bipedalism, but this is not true bipedalism and requires water. Bonobo's, chimps, proboscis monkeys and macaques are all known to do this.

yes I read that, but this one walks upright on dry ground two. but it is not a biped since it uses all four limbs for walking.

Never heard of such an animal.
Your sentance's contradict each other btw.

why because I do not consider being upright the same as being a biped or being a biped is not the same as being upright.


yea I see it I said it walked upright in the water. it does but it also walks upright on land it just isn't a biped.


Ok just forget this ape it has been several years since I saw it on the animal channel and I don't know it's name sorry.

Well as I said, you can think that if you wish. It does mean are wrong though.

like I said ok what ever I guess we will have to agree to disagree with this. even tho it seems that everyone else seems to agree with me at least those who have submitted anything on upright walking to yahoo.


OK I am partilly wrong some birds do sit in an upright position.

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds...dentify/posture

bipedal definition


Definition: [adj] having two feet

Synonyms: biped, two-footed

Antonyms: four-footed, quadruped, quadrupedal





Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition: \Bip"e*dal\, a. [L. bipedalis: cf. F. bip['e]dal. See
{Biped}, n.]
1. Having two feet; biped.

2. Pertaining to a biped.


http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=bipedal



upright definition



At right angles to the horizon or to level ground: perpendicular, plumb, vertical. See horizontal/vertical/change of position.
Directed or pointed upward: erect, raised, upstanding. See horizontal/vertical/change of position.
Having or marked by uprightness in principle and action: good, honest, honorable, incorruptible, righteous, true, upstanding. Informal straight-shooting. Idioms: on theup-and-upup and up. See honest/dishonest.

http://www.answers.com/topic/upright

all im saying is what makes us any different from previous generations of man???

they used gods to explain what they couldnt

now we do the same, its pretty naive to think we have the actual answers, as the generations prior to us thought this aswell and were later found to be incorrect. we should learn from our ancestors mistakes.

to claim god created everything to me is the same as people worshiping god who controlled the weather, sun etc. a guess for an unaswered question that will be proved wrong with time

again i would like to ask a question that previously went unanswered. if u believe god created everything. why did he make things so complicated? surely if he is god he can create things to be simpler as he has the power to create anything??

our bodies seem too complicated to be put down to 'created by god'

and yet ironically religion created the soul as there is no proof it exists

The soul lives in the heart. This is why your heart hurts when it is broken and usually not your head.

I don't think that religion created the soul. however it has twisted the idea to fit that religion's idea of what a soul is and/or does.

It may be as simple as the body needs to this complicated to work right.

oh really well overwhelming evidence there. religion created the soul. and surprise surprise it was to explain something we could not and still can not

contradictory dont you think. a god that can create anything and do anything cant make the body simpler to work?

the body needs to be this complicated to work right??? could god not create us to have simpler circulatory or digestive systems then? not really an all powerful god

why not make our blood more efficient at taking oxygen out of the blood? why not make our muscles more efficient as we produce toxic chemicals during exercise, lactic acid. we are quite inefficient to say we were created by a god.

There was some reasearch on the soul and how much it weighs...

To the modern ear, MacDougall’s response has a chilling simple answer; the soul could be detected “by weighing a human being in the act of death.” He obtained a bed “arranged on a light framework built on a delicate balanced platform-beam scales.” MacDougall selected dying patients exhausted by the severity of disease, so their deaths would occur with little or no muscular movement.
In the end, MacDougal believed he had assayed the human soul as an entity weighing between three- eights of an ounce and one and a half ounces. His results he wrote, would quantify the fact that he soul survived and offer proof of an afterlife “worth more than the postulates of all the creeds and all the metaphysical arguments combined.http://gravewalking.com/id98.html