Creation vs. Evolution

[Encyclopedia]

And why would a soul weigh something? Isn't a soul meant to be incorporeal?

 

[Lain]

Souls don't exist, but if they did, they aren't a physical object so they would have zero mass anyways.

 

[canderson19]

Every time you invoke "science" you get it wrong. You don't know what science is, you misunderstand its nature and you misrepresent it. Every. Time. Your segue into the beginnings of the universe is yet another example of this - not understanding the theories behind them is no reason to dismiss them as "only mathematical proofs" and a failure of science. New medicines and new diseases are not failures of science, but successes of science.


So long as you keep doing this, there is nothing to discuss and your opinion is based on a distortion of reality. That's also the reason this thread is as long as it is.

Definition of EVOLUTION
1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

This is exactly what I am talking about:

"not understanding the theories behind them is no reason to dismiss them as "only mathematical proofs" and a failure of science."

When did I dismiss them? I simply said science does not understand them. Not understanding religion is also no reason to dismiss it either.

The reason this thread goes on and on, is becuase no one can say for absolute sure that it occured this way or that way.

 

[Famine]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

How unexpected. Someone with a demonstrable lack of understanding of a topic quoting a dictionary.

When did I dismiss them?

You referred to them as "only mathematical proofs", which is, all at once, inaccurate, untrue and contradictory.

I simply said science does not understand them.

Which again misses the point of science completely. You do not understand what science is and every time you speak of it you get it wrong.

Not understanding religion is also no reason to dismiss it either.

Where has religion been dismissed? Where has it been utterly misrepresented in the manner you continually do to science?

To say that the discovery of a new disease represents a failure of science is akin to saying that every murder represents a failure of religion. It's absolutely astonishing anyone would even consider tapping those words out in seriousness.

The reason this thread goes on and on, is becuase no one can say for absolute sure that it occured this way or that way.

Nope. The reason this thread goes on and on is because people keep insisting that no-one can say for sure, and it's the people who either don't understand the science or who have no interest in understanding the science that keep insisting it.

Which misses the point. Spectacularly.

 

[canderson19]

You put the "failure of science" in my mouth. I did not say it was a failure of science. I said science does not understand everything and science should not be thrown under the bus because it deosn't.

So peace...I'm done. Been fun. Back to GT5 business...

 

[BobK]

Back to GT5 business...

Why does that not surprise me?

 

[ell470]

👍
Lets not forget he most likely murdered dogs and:"MacDougall's ... methodology ... was suspect, [his] sample size far too small, and [his] ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul ... His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more."

EDIT: ell470 is lovin this stuff lol

Oh my, you are so right! Haha!

Seriously, the thing about your soul leaving your body, if you believe in something hard enough, you'll eventually stumble on to something that will strengthen your beliefs. It's no coincidence that only people that really believe in ghosts manages to find proof of their existence in blurry videos on youtube...

edit: or that only religious people see jesus on a piece of toast

 

[Famine]

You put the "failure of science" in my mouth. I did not say it was a failure of science. I said science does not understand everything and science should not be thrown under the bus because it deosn't.

However science often fails in the simplest of forms. Medical science is one in which every day, we find new things, and continue to change theories and ideas. Often what was true ten years ago is disproved. Ten to twenty years ago celiac disease did not exist, now it is almost a household name in the US. That doesn't mean that science is wrong and we throw it under the bus. However on a personal side, when science fails one, one must wonder why. When all reality and science fails you must wonder why.

That'll be a citation of medical science as one of the forms in which science fails, according to your understanding of it. If that's not what you meant, I wonder why you bookended your disease monologue with "science often fails"/"when science fails".

 

[canderson19]

That'll be a citation of medical science as one of the forms in which science fails, according to your understanding of it. If that's not what you meant, I wonder why you bookended your disease monologue with "science often fails"/"when science fails".

Science fails to explian everything...again out of context. Not science is wrong. Science fails to explain the diesease at the present time. In other words present day science does not understand some dieseases, some theories, etc. MY point with celiac is 20 years ago, nobody had a clue what it was. Now it is common. Science failed to recognize the disease 20 years ago, becuase there wasn't enough evidence or proper studies to warrent a diagnosis or hint that it even existed. You are inferring I am saying science is wrong (and cherry picking), I am saying science doesn't know everything. I am simply saying the science cannot percieve and understand everything (and I think everybody agrees with that - not everything is understood). So when a doctor walks up to you and says directly "science may never know." That is what I am refering too.

But that is beside the point. As long as you have it all figured out, great. Nobody is force feeding you to belief what I am saying. I belief what I want. You can call it whatever you want. Say whatever you want, imply whatever you want. That is your choice. Can we please end this peacefully?

 

[AndersonG22]

Ive seen evidence of evolution right in my yard while I was mowing it 15 minutes ago. As I was going back and fourth there were a bunch of frogs escaping its deadly blades. Im sure those frogs have no idea what a lown mower is, I think we can all agree on this theory and Im no scientist. How did they know they were in danger if they dont know what a lawn mower is? Its because a lawn mower makes lots of noise and vibrations. Frogs can sense vibration and hear things, got it? That means they were escapng a predator because they dont know a damn thing about lawn mowers. They are hard wired to jump away from loud noises and big vibrations, why you ask? Because there dumb anscesors who didnt run from noises or vibrations died off thousands of years ago or millions of years ago. The frogs that jumped away from loud noises and vibrations survived to breed and pass these instincts on to there young ones. By instincts I mean fleeing from loud noises and vibrations.

Where is my nobel peace prize damn it?

 

[orimarc]

I feel dejavù:

1) Religious person enters thread.
2) Religious person shows misunderstanding of science.
3) Scientific person (Famine, TM, Duke, etc.) corrects religious person.
4) Religious person leaves thread.

PS, 03R1 AKA UnoMOTO, canderson19, Pako, Swift...

 

[Famine]

Science fails to explian everything...again out of context.

I quoted your paragraph in full without editing it in any way. You stated that science often fails and cited medical science as an example:

I cannot prove God and I cannot prove creationism. However science often fails in the simplest of forms. Medical science is one in which every day, we find new things, and continue to change theories and ideas. Often what was true ten years ago is disproved. Ten to twenty years ago celiac disease did not exist, now it is almost a household name in the US. That doesn't mean that science is wrong and we throw it under the bus. However on a personal side, when science fails one, one must wonder why. When all reality and science fails you must wonder why.

In other words present day science does not understand some dieseases.

Again, you fail to understand science. The key words there are "present day", not "science does not understand".

MY point with celiac is 20 years ago, nobody had a clue what it was. Now it is common. Science failed to recognize the disease 20 years ago, becuase there wasn't enough evidence or proper studies to warrent a diagnosis.

As a point of order, coeliac disease has been named and recognised as such since Victorian times - and the present day treatment (diet) was pioneered soon after.

You are inferring I am saying science is wrong, I am saying science doesn't know.

I'm inferring nothing. I'm quoting your exact words. If you have some other meaning to them, it is known only to you because you haven't written them.

Speaking of unwritten words, there's a key one you keep missing. You missed it off the end of the above sentence too. It's "yet".

So when a doctor walks up to you and says directly "science may never know." That is what I am refering too.

Huh?

But that is beside the point. As long as you have it all figured out, great.

Once again, misunderstanding and misrepresenting science. I'll help you out - science is about a right answer, not an answer right now.

Your opinion (belief) is based on as misunderstanding of the very nature of what it is you disagree with. So long as you believe that science is what you believe it to be you'll retain that opinion. I'll help you out again - science doesn't have it "all figured out". Anything that claims that is wrong.

 

[canderson19]

Speaking of unwritten words, there's a key one you keep missing. You missed it off the end of the above sentence too. It's "yet".

Your opinion (belief) is based on as misunderstanding of the very nature of what it is you disagree with. So long as you believe that science is what you believe it to be you'll retain that opinion.[/color][/b]

What is the yet? How does anybody, you, me, anybody know what the yet is? How does anybody not know the "yet" in science will not prove the existance of God? "Yet" is powerful and is undefined.

As for science (definitions, etc), if I go into that I am sure we will just argue further (and you will say I don't get...). There is no point to arguing in circles. Science is not always right (if often corrects itself).

And fine in your eyes, and about 90% of the people on this thread I misunderstand. That is fine.

 

[AndersonG22]

Do you understand this canderson19?

Ive seen evidence of evolution right in my yard while I was mowing it 15 minutes ago. As I was going back and fourth there were a bunch of frogs escaping its deadly blades. Im sure those frogs have no idea what a lown mower is, I think we can all agree on this theory and Im no scientist. How did they know they were in danger if they dont know what a lawn mower is? Its because a lawn mower makes lots of noise and vibrations. Frogs can sense vibration and hear things, got it? That means they were escapng a predator because they dont know a damn thing about lawn mowers. They are hard wired to jump away from loud noises and big vibrations, why you ask? Because there dumb anscesors who didnt run from noises or vibrations died off thousands of years ago or millions of years ago. The frogs that jumped away from loud noises and vibrations survived to breed and pass these instincts on to there young ones. By instincts I mean fleeing from loud noises and vibrations.

 

[Famine]

What is the yet?

You said "science doesn't know". Science doesn't know yet.

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer in science. In fact, it's the start of science. Not knowing things yet is what science is all about.

How does anybody, you, me, anybody know what the yet is?

The... huh?

How does anybody not know the "yet" in science will not prove the existance of God?

Science may well prove the existence of any given deity at some point. It won't be the ones written about in old books, because they are ineffable and defy proof, but some form of more-advanced intelligence is almost inevitable.

It's not something that shakes the very foundations of science, you know.

 

[canderson19]

I'm happy, we agree on one thing

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer in science. In fact, it's the start of science. Not knowing things yet is what science is all about.

 

[homeforsummer]

Its also been Scientifically proven that at the instant of death, a person loses a few ounces of wieght.

Exhaling their last breath? Voiding their bowels?

I suppose if your "instant of death" is having your head blown off with a shotgun then you'd probably lose more than a few ounces, too.

 

[AndersonG22]

Exhaling their last breath? Voiding their bowels?

I suppose if your "instant of death" is having your head blown off with a shotgun then you'd probably lose more than a few ounces, too.

LOL 👍

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Souls don't exist, but if they did, they aren't a physical object so they would have zero mass anyways.

They most certainly do exsist, and you have one.
Although your apparently not aware of it.

When you die, your soul (your unique individual personality) with the spirit, will leave the physical body.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, thats what is being described
in "died and resuscitated" or "near death" as its called, experiences.

 

[ell470]

They most certainly do.

When you die, your soul (your unique individual personality) with the spirit, will leave the physical body.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, thats what is being described in "died and resuscitated" or "near death" as its called,
experiences.

Are we going for that discussion again? You cannot convince a non believer that the soul actually exists.

As for near death experiences,

Since "near death" means you're in pretty bad shape, I'd vote for it being nothing else but a dream that blends with reality, like when you sleep at night & your alarm clock is part of your dream (your friend walks up to you, opens his/her mouth and all you hear is 'Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring'

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Are we going for that discussion again? You cannot convince a non believer that the soul actually exists.

As for near death experiences,

Since "near death" means you're in pretty bad shape, I'd vote for it being nothing else but a dream that blends with reality, like when you sleep at night & your alarm clock is part of your dream (your friend walks up to you, opens his/her mouth and all you hear is 'Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring'

Oh yea thats right, just another few million coincidences.

 

[Scaff]

They most certainly do exsist, and you have one.
Although your apparently not aware of it.

When you die, your soul (your unique individual personality) with the spirit, will leave the physical body.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, thats what is being described
in "died and resuscitated" or "near death" as its called, experiences.

Can you please supply the requested citation to your claim that.....

Its also been Scientifically proven that at the instant of death, a person loses a few ounces of wieght.

...as claims such as this do need to be sourced to be accepted and then discussed, the AUP is quite clear on this matter.


Scaff

 

[AndersonG22]

They most certainly do.

When you die, your soul (your unique individual personality) with the spirit, will leave the physical body.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, thats what is being described in "died and resuscitated" or "near death" as its called,
experiences.

That is just a theory some people have, it could also have been a dream they had befor they woke up which is another theory. Why do you guys over look my frog story that explains natural selection so well? It clearly shows how far them little frogs have come, evolving to escape preditors.

Heres another example for you guys:

Lets say a deer was born today with bullet proof and arrow proof hyde. This deer might live long enough to reproduce, if it does its babies might have bullet proof hyde. They would survive hunting season each year, reproducing more and more bullet proof deer eventually out living the regular deer that get hunted to extincion in a few hundred or even thousand years down the line. This is how animals change, in an incomprehensible amount of time. Just like a hundred light years is an incomprehensible distance.































Think about this the human genome is 96% chimp!! I think I need to repeat myself, the human genome is 96% chimp!! In simple terms that means we are only 4% different then CHIMPS!!!

That means are great great great etc grandpa was a chimp!!! We evolved from chimps over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years of evolution.

Im sorry we cant find the remains of the in between ancestors. That does not mean evolution didnt happen, we have plenty of EVIDENCE!!! The lack of remains has something to do with decompasition and a little thing called "weathering and erosion". "Plate tectonics" also has something to do with it.










"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes&#8212;he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament." - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

 

[Touring Mars]

We evolved from chimps over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years of evolution.

No, we didn't.

Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor that existed approximately 5 million years ago. There are no chimpanzees in the lineage of any human being, or vice versa, so great great great (x 150,000) grandad was not a chimp. Although my Dad does act like one sometimes.

 

[Dotini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

FWIW here is the original story of the meme about how the soul came to be popularly regarded as weighing 21 grams.

Respectful towards all my friends, including SCJ and TM,
Steve

 

[AndersonG22]

No, we didn't.

Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor that existed approximately 5 million years ago. There are no chimpanzees in the lineage of any human being, or vice versa, so great great great (x 150,000) grandad was not a chimp. Although my Dad does act like one sometimes.

Correct, I didn read page 2 lol.

"Humans and chimps originate from a common ancestor, and scientists believe they diverged some six million years ago."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes_2.html

 

[Scaff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

FWIW here is the original story of the meme about how the soul came to be popularly regarded as weighing 21 grams.

Respectful towards all my friends, including SCJ and TM,
Steve

Your links not working for me, but someone else has also posted the same info.

However the work of Duncan MacDougall most certainly does not constitute scientific proof by even the most generous measure of it, and given that scientific proof was exactly what SCJ claimed I would like to be able to review the source material for his claim.


Scaff

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Can you please supply the requested citation to your claim that.....

...as claims such as this do need to be sourced to be accepted and then discussed, the AUP is quite clear on this matter.


Scaff

I'm sorry to say I do not have the reference for the claim on death wieght measurement, but I have heard and seen it cited more than once over the years. I don't think it was the one already listed.

I doubt seriously if my interpretation would be accepted even if I did.

To what in the AUP are you referring?

 

[Joey D]

Can you please supply the requested citation to your claim that.....

...as claims such as this do need to be sourced to be accepted and then discussed, the AUP is quite clear on this matter.


Scaff

No offence here, but does the AUP really apply to someone's opinion? And if you are going to throw the AUP around at SCJ, shouldn't you do the same for members saying their is no soul? Where's the evidence there?

While I don't agree with SCJ on the fact that there is a measurable soul, there has been research done to support the theory. The merit of the research can be questioned for sure, but it is still research however daft you may think it is.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

However the work of Duncan MacDougall most certainly does not constitute scientific proof by even the most generous measure of it, and given that scientific proof was exactly what SCJ claimed I would like to be able to review the source material for his claim.


Scaff

Scientific proof as with other so named theories is open to interpretation.

I don't see anything to suggest this experiment wasn't conducted Scientifically.

No offence here, but does the AUP really apply to someone's opinion? And if you are going to throw the AUP around at SCJ, shouldn't you do the same for members saying their is no soul? Where's the evidence there?

While I don't agree with SCJ on the fact that there is a measurable soul, there has been research done to support the theory. The merit of the research can be questioned for sure, but it is still research however daft you may think it is.

Thanks for your support.