im fully aware of this research but it does not 100% proove the existence of a soul and its purpose if any.

fact is religion created the soul to further explain more unknowns to them.

our ancestors jumped to the conclusion the world was flat before being proved wrong.

Several problems with that idea. MacDougall's study has never been successfully replicated by anyone but him. He himself claims to have got those results five times (a tiny, tiny number of N=1 trials). Even if the results were replicable, why should this be the soul? It's rather a leap from "something weighing 21g" to "an immaterial and immortal vessel containing all we are".

And this is not to mention the philosophical problems with the idea of a soul having mass. What's it made of, Higgs bosons?

and i guess the feeling of 'butterflies' in the stomach is the result of the soul aswell then???

nothing to do with our biological functions, release of adrenalin etc

exactly thank you, why should this be the soul???

fact is throughout history and im sure in the future religion makes initial explanations of the unknown without any real thought or investigation into the matter.

religion has been proven wrong before on these matters and it will again. its incredibly naive to think that the loss in mass, if the results were even credible, can be explained by the soul

Circulatory no every cell in the body needs food and oxygen. The blood carries this to every cell in the body. The body uses the strongest acid known to man and it still takes 24 hours to digest that food down so that the body can use it. At least most foods.


The more we exercise the longer it takes for said lactic acid to build up and/or effect us.


The simplest body design I can think of is the Earth itself. I believe that the Earth is alive at least to some degree.

I believe there is a soul. But this loss in mass is probable just the air in the lungs. Or the loss of the last of your body waste.

Right, alive according to the criteria you cited at the beginning of this thread you mean? How so?

Edited to add: Is that more or less alive than the artificial cells you discuss?

sorry you didnt totally get what i meant by circulatory system

did you know haemoglobin combines more easily with carbon monoxide than oxygen???

seems to be an unforntunate coincidence from evolution than a mistake by an all powerful god

regardless of whether our bodies improve the more we exercise, the point im making is god can do anything so he could create simpler methods for our bodies to work surely this must be agreed?

he could create more effective digestion methods. large percentages of our food goes undigested and unused (faeces). seems an unefficient design by a god to create doesnt it?

It breaths/ out gases from volcanoes. It has a circulitary system rivers and rain. It has a membrane the automosphere which protects it from most foreign bodies and it eats. It also repairs itself over time. The Earth is also warm blooded.

another seeming contradiction.

you quite rightly suggest the possibility of the loss in mass being due to more logical reasons and yet earlier you said the soul leaves in the heart for which their is no evidence apart from the feeling of a 'broken heart' with i assure you has physiological explanations

did you know that oxygen is a stronger poison to life than carbon monoxide.

no loves starts in the heart as well. in fact all emotions start in the heart.

and yet you still believe god would create us to use this???

i dont see how anyone can believe god created us when u see how inefficient and overcomplicated our bodies our.

for inventions the simplest methods are usually the best, seems god never heard this

Notwithstanding the fact that these are only analagous to biological processes, rather than the processes themselves, what does Earth eat? And how does it reproduce?

i would love to know your physiological evidence to suggest this? or is it based on more theory or imagination?

The heart is a muscle used to pump blood around the body. What makes you think it has anything to do with emotion, let alone think that it is the place where 'all emotions start'?

asteroids

That is where I feel my emotions.

i wouldnt say that the earth is living. it has processes that seem like it is living but these processes are not performed by the earth itself.

we breathe by taking air into our lungs purposefully.

the earth 'breathes' as gases and liquids are continuously trying to balance themselves across the earth. liquids and gases move due to gradients eg from high concentrations to low. basic example, air moves from high pressure to low pressure to try to find an equal balance, creating the wind. this balance will never be achieved and so there is constant movement.

it is easy to be fooled into thinking the earth is alive as these processes mimic those of actual living creatures

Probable more theory than imagination but both I guess. See also my last post.

haha either your running out of credible answers or this is just a wind up

never heard of the process of osmosis. That is the process of putting oxygen into the blood and removing carbon dioxide from the body. The oxygen lvls in the lungs are lower than in the air thus the 02 moves into the blood stream. CO2 moves out of the body for the same reason.

The Earth eats asteroids.

This conversation is getting silly.

*Sigh* I'll charitably assume that by 'asteroids' you mean any objects which collide with our planet in the form of meteorites, yes?

If I shoot someone in the head, does that mean they eat bullets? Eating as part of the definition of life is something which has to be done in order to function and remain alive. The Earth does not have to be hit by external objects in order to remain stable. Actually almost the reverse is true, is it not?

And reproduction? Which, if I could remind you, is the thing you pointed out the artificial cell could not do?

i am genuinely intrigued as to your logic behind this

do u assosciate the feeling of butterflies or nerves in the stomach to the soul aswell?

feelings experienced by the body are usually the direct results of physiological processes within the body. mainly chemical

Why because the Earth doesn't actively go out and find it's food. Neither does a sponge.


As for reproduction I never said it reproduced but science has sort of.


see how the moon was formed.

I do think there's a case to be made that the Earth can be considered to be alive (as per Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis). I just don't think that danielost is making it.

Also, respiration involves the absorption and then emission of gases, not just the movement of gases within the body.

yes ive heard of this. i dont think you actually understand it, if u did u would see my point.

humans have to actively intake oxygen by increasing the volume of their lungs by relaxing the diaphram. therefore it is a physical process.

the oxygen then moves along a gradient from higher to lower into the blood as there is more oxygen in the lungs than the blood and vice versa with carbon dioxide.

the air is then exhaled by contracting the diaphram

this process would not happen if we didnt actively do this process, that is why people need artifial lungs or cpr when they cannot breathe themsleves or have stopped breathing.

the earths processes are not active or caused directly by the earth, merely the liquids or gases following the laws of physics independant of the earth

The last time someone said anything about greenhouse effect. I should say someone with an actual brain not al gore. The Earth absorbs CO2 through trees and water. And it sits in the rocks until released later.

Humans do, Animals do, Trees do not, Plants do not. The same with liquids.


It is true that the plants can control the loss of liquids but they do not actively drink nor breath.

the moon was not formed by god and yet you think the earth was, hmmm strange

Lots of organisms passively absorb nutrients. You misunderstand, and I'm increasngly thinking it's intentional. If I chuck stones at you, it doesn't mean you're eating them. If I chuck stones at you because you need to absorb them to remain alive, then you could be said to be eating them. The earth does not require collision with heavy objects to remain alive. It actually doesn't do the Earth much good at all. Like as if I chucked stones at you.



If you mean the idea that the Moon was a big chunk which broke off Earth, that's not reproduction any more than if I chopped your arm off.

correct plant rely on a seperate process but never the less it is an active process performed by the plants.

they actively uptake minerals and water against the concentration gradient via their roots.

again the earth does not do this and so cannot be classed as living

I think that the moon was formed by god using the process which science may some day discover. Just as I think that the Earth was formed by God as well. But that it was sublimented(I think that is the right word) out of a cloud of hydrogen and other elements.

Says the guy who just spent hours arguing with a zoologist about zoology on the basis of a thing he half remembers that was on TV a few years ago.


Well, if in your conceptualisation the atmosphere is is the cell membrane, then the Earth absorbs nothing.

Why do you think I used the words sort of.

haha im afraid your mistaken, they actively uptake minerals and water against the concentration gradient in order to survive.

the earths processes do not keep it alive, they merely happen to obey the laws of physics.

from what ive read your theories are based on incorrect or misunderstood logic.

you also seem to dodge questions you cannot seem to answer.

again refering to my earlier post regarding the digestive and circulatory systems.

do u think that an all powerful creator could not make our bodies simpler or at least more efficient?

i feel you have no real answer to that other than one that would dicredit your original point of god creating everything

Because you know it doesn't actually work like that in the least bit, so you wanted to try to fudge your words in order to appear as if you were making a point.

Well done you have posted a load of dictionary definitions. However this is not related to whether an animal stands upright or not. Birds like the definition stated though have two feet so must be bipedal. Seriously learn some biology.
And no Yahoo does not agree with you. You just don't look correctly. You are in fact wrong.

Actually current scientific work suggest that the moon came from Earth colliding with another planet called Theia.
It is called the giant impact hypothesis.

Are you that ill informed? Seriously?
You think your heart is related to emotion? I think you'll find that emotions are hormonally controlled and the control is from your brain and you reproductive organs.

Wow, do you ever attend school at all? Do understand metaphor? Really, you should not try and hold a scientific argument.

I'm under the impression that someones messing with our heads.

yeah i find it hard to believe someone can actually say these things in all seriousness!!

I get that impression alot these days.
With regards to whether life was created or spontaneous... why not both? I dont see why religion can't conform to scientific theories. I personally don't see how evolution and even abiogenesis detract from a religion's value. Just because the Genesis creation story is metaphorical that does not mean that suddenly Christianity is invalid. When I was a Catholic the theory of evolution did not bother me at all. I looked at it as kindve an "oh, well that explains how it was done, and then the Bible explains why"

Never underestimate the stupidity of homo sapiens .

I believe it was Einstein who said "the only things that are infinite are the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former"

There has also been research showing weight increase after death. As well, MacDougall's experiments were done a hundred years ago, using the imprecise tools of that time, and he studied only six subjects...and he had the intention of finding that soul had a weight before going into the experiments as he wrote, "It is unthinkable that personality and consciousness can be attributes of that which does not occupy space." Not really an unbiased, scientific point of view.

And just to rub salt in the wound, the guy wrote his thesis on homeopathy.

Trust me, if there was some actual merit to his claims, then this research would have carried on in a fervor over the past century. But it has not.

I had heard of his claim that the soul has weight and when I looked it up I was searching for a more recent article , more recent research and could find none. I posted this because I always thought it was fascinating that one would really try and prove the soul exist and weighs..... I thought there would be more research to prove his theory right /wrong.

Life in my opinion is that same as energy (because it can be viewed as a from of energy) It cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed it has to go somewhere after death.

Yes, the chemicals that gave life, give life to another organism.