Matt the Medic

But a radio wave is measureable and quantifiable. One can detect the wave and signal strength and accurately conclude that the signal is good.

Bad analogy.

Plognark

Once someone invents a soul reciever/detector, it will jump into the realm of the natural. If it follows consistent laws, if it can be detected, and if it can be tested, it's natural.

We can see the effects of the television signal, we can test it, and there are ways we can falsify the theories behind it.

So far, we have nothing similar for the soul. And, as I mentioned, there are certain common claims about how a theoretical soul should work that are at odds with the reality of how our grey matter behaves when it's tinkered with. :huh:

Edited to add: This doesn't mean a soul absolutely doesn't exist, but it puts some serious doubt on the concept. Science doesn't deal in absolute Truthsâ„¢.

RBH

in response to rluvsb's questionJack the Bodiless wroteI like to put it this way: Organisms whose sensory and perceptual apparatus doesn't give them a reasonably true picture of (relevant aspects of) their world wind up as lunch for organisms whose apparatus does so.

RBH

Aegeri

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

They just never give up on the sheer ridiculousness of this rubbish. I'd love to know how this 'sin' thing suddenly and irreversibly re-engineers every single animal on the planet to be a carnivore. For that matter, why did only some animals become carnivores and others herbivores?

Speaking of, does that mean omnivourous animals are simply confused?

rluvsb

I guess that my faith makes this the wrong forum for me to express my ideas. I refuse to compromise my faith in God to accept constantly changing theories and hypotheses from men. If the ideas of men are not commensurate with the Bible, they cannot be true. I will not waver in this and if that makes me a backwater YEC than I am. If there is nothing more than evolution to explain my existence then there is nothing to exist for because we are all going to die, with nothing and to nothing.

Farewell and Grace be with you all.

Matt the Medic

If the ideas of men are not commensurate with reality, they cannot be true.

So that's why we toss out the bible.

But what's the purpose of going into an evolution forum in the first place if you already have the cognitive dissonance to whisk away anything against the bible as untrue?

The oblate spheroid Earth theory must really suck for you, eh?

Plognark

Hmm, that's too bad :huh:

Why not? What makes the Bible such an infallible source of information? Well, guess I probably won't get an answer to that.

Huh, well, sSorry you'd feel so hopeless in that case. Well, it was a good discussion anyhow. Hope you change your mind and come back.

Afterthought: I'm really curious what you had hoped to accomplish, but I guess I'll never find out. You were a lot more polite than most creationists who come here. :huh:

Aegeri

Actually, I believe in God myself. Unfortunately, I also happen to be a scientist and things like immediately and 'magically' reverse engineering every animal on the planet suddenly for a lifestyle of meat/pseudo-meat just doesn't make any sense. Of course, while I find the idea absurd, if you have a reasonable testable hypothesis for how the 'fall' could suddenly do such a reverse engineering and where this is supported in the fossil record I'm all ears.

Unfortunately, that is because 'evidence' happens to have won out overall. The 'literal' view of the bible is untenable but that doesn't preclude the questions about why that is. God is not a liar, stupid or one that would go out of His way to decieve mankind. A literal interpretation literally requires making God a liar and then making up things based on no evidence at all.

Unfortunately, we have problems with that as in natural real observations directly contradict the bible to begin with. Creationists try (desperately) to make this seem not so, but in reality this is the case but again, I do not think God is a liar and the bible was ultimately written by men, not directly by God. As you've so succinctly pointed out, the ideas of human beings can be fallible so in my opinion, our interpretation of the bible is incorrect: Which clearly means a literal reading isn't literal.

I would say that makes you one of those who is immune to reason.

I on the other hand am not, and if you can explain this sudden amount of 'reverse' engineering that animals go through to become meat eaters from plant eaters I'm all ears. I'll listen to any evidence you present, but it's going to have to be brilliant to convince me that organisms suddenly underwent this massive physiological change.

I don't see it like that.

Out of curiousity, why don't you regard meterology as denying Gods power? What about atomic physics? How about germ theory denying the role of Satan or 'evil' in the role of diseases?

rluvsb

Aegeri, What God do you believe in if not the God of the Bible?

It is illogical to pick and choose which part of the Bible are true. If one part is false, then no part can be trusted.

I believe it arrogant to think that man can understand every aspect of God. My goal as a scientist is to understand the things that we can from direct observational evidence to the best of our ability. If we can't know something, then we accept it on Faith and maybe we will figure it out later. If I could explain everything about God and how He makes things work, there is no need for God because I "can become as God", the origin of the fall of man into sin. I belive it is sin to think we can become like God by studying nature and learning everything.

(Didn't I say I was leaving?)

Aegeri

I thought I made it clear that was the one I was talking about.

Do you agree with denying women the ability to speak in Church? What about Slavery? What about many of the other things that Creationists/Literalists don't say is the 'word' of God that suits them when convenient to avoid a shit storm otherwise?

I believe it is arrogant to assume God directly lies to us from what we observe through the natural world. I also assume it is arrogant to assume that we can understand God from a book clearly written by human beings.

This is why the 'literal' interpretation has been thrown out the window.

If you cannot accept the result of your experiment because you've come to your conclusion first then you're a very poor scientist I'm sorry to say.

No we don't, we say "We don't know".

It's more likely we can learn about how diseases are not caused by demons. That biology establishes how species diversity and the mechanisms that regulate island ecologies. We can learn that lightning is not Gods wrath but is caused by perfectly natural explanations.

There is no need to hide God in the places we lack understanding, as far as I'm concerned he's rather present as it is anyway in the natural laws that make the universe run.