Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wildernesse · 05-01-2003, 06:39 PM

Nickle, I love the title of this thread.

I am a theistic evolutionist type, so I should be a candidate for the question, eh? My answer: I don't know! (That one comes in handy alot.)

I can't really define what a soul is, or how we know we have them or if we have them, etc. Is it life itself or consciousness, is it our "selves" or what? It's supposed to live on after we die, is all I "know".

I like thinking about this question though. It makes me happy, because it brings up new questions about the mind, theology, and ancient hominids. woohoo!

If I were pinned down, I have been sort of fond of the idea that once an interesting creature appeared, God gave them souls. Humans happen to be interesting, but I don't know when the population reached that point (if they did).

--tibac

Nickle · 05-01-2003, 06:43 PM

Much better answer wildernesse. I guess not all tenets of belief have to be ironed out.

As for Badfish, I specifically stated twice that I wanted the views of a theist who didn't take genesis literally, so I could care less of your answers. I'm already aware of the fundamentalist answer to this question.

If you have a problem with common descent, take it over to Evo/Cre. Don't derail this thread.

Nickle · 05-01-2003, 07:04 PM

Is this bloke in heaven (or hell, or nothing)?

Demigawd · 05-01-2003, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nickle
Is this bloke in heaven (or hell, or nothing)?

Heaven! Uh, wait a minute, Hell! Oh, shoot, pass!

Monkeybot · 05-01-2003, 08:55 PM

Maybe Homo ergaster got its own Messiah, just like we Homo sapiens got Jesus.

See, I could be a theologian if I wanted to

Badfish · 05-01-2003, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nickle

Is this bloke in heaven (or hell, or nothing)?

I don't know it looks like a puzzle, it looks like it may be a fabrication of some sort, maybe a pigme mutation or something, could be in heaven.

On a more serious note, I am worried about my brother, he seems to be devolving, as you can see here, I am worried.

sakrilege · 05-02-2003, 03:49 AM

I started this mostly inconsequential thread, Clones & souls late last year. In it are 2 posts that may be of interest concerning souls.

Quote:

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
Spirits, Souls, and Clones: Biology's Latest Challenge to Theology

Also

Quote:

Originally posted by WWSD
Well now of course clones have souls.

But here is the tricky part. The nucleus doesn't contain all of the soulular DNA, only certain genes. The vast majority of soulular genes are contained in the soulochondrion, which has two round DNA plasmids and resembles bacteria in some ways.

The soulochondrion provides spirit energy through the hydrolysis of ATP and the creation of a lot of complex soulular enzymes (soulochrome oxidase, soulate cyclase, 1,5-N,N souliferic acid oxidase, etc) as well as numerous transcription factors (Sonic the Soulhog, SOUL2, Soul Morphogenic Factor 4 etc) and structural proteins (Beta soulctin, soulogen I - VIII, holyghostin, spiritin, etc). This produces spiritual activity and faith.

Of course, this brings up an important point, where does the soulochondrion come from? The father obviously, not The Father (though all things ultimatly come from The Father eh?)

However, since some of the soulochondrions DNA is in the nucleus, a natural born child will have two copies of all nuclear soulular DNA as well as the paternal soulochondrion DNA, so a new soul is forged.

Thus a clone will have a new soul, but it will be a soul comprised of the donor nuclear soulular DNA and the soulochondrion DNA that the recipient cell contains.

A recent issue of some big named scientific journal found that atheists and agnostics have a mutation in one of the soulochondrion genes, a gene now dubbed godless. The Godless protein is a transcription factor that enables the upregulation of all of the soul DNA in the nucleus and without it, no soulochondrion activity is produced.

So far the godless mutation seems to be largly due to random mutational events during embryogenesis, leading to incomplete penetrance and differing levels of expressivity.

However, cases of inherited mutations in the godless gene have been recorded.

So far, no homologues of godless have been found in nature and only one species of archaebacteria (Solfulobis catholictaricus) seems to have anything remotly like soulochondrial DNA.

Calzaer · 05-02-2003, 07:43 AM

Where do these folks start to acquire souls? That's a good question! I say somewhere around... oooooh.... *closes eyes, points* The fifth one from the left, on the top row. Because God told me.

Badfish · 05-02-2003, 10:43 AM

Those skulls could still be human, have you seen some of the pigmys and other african tribesmen? Sure some are old, but anglo-saxon and african skulls can be different looking.

The only one that has me suspicious is the "A" skull, but it just may be an old monkey or an extinct monkey.

And they don't look ordered very well, "L" looks out of place with the rest..

Mageth · 05-02-2003, 11:09 AM

The only one that has me suspicious is the "A" skull, but it just may be an old monkey or an extinct monkey.

A, I believe, is a chimpanzee skull.

Those skulls could still be human, have you seen some of the pigmys and other african tribesmen? Sure some are old, but anglo-saxon and african skulls can be different looking.

I think if you compared any of the pre-H. Sapiens skulls with modern human skulls, whether African, European, Asian, or other, you would see obvious differences, for example in brain size. In other words, skulls of modern humans are more similar to each other than to any of our ancestor's skulls.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2003, 06:39 PM	#11
wildernesse Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,578	Nickle, I love the title of this thread. I am a theistic evolutionist type, so I should be a candidate for the question, eh? My answer: I don't know! (That one comes in handy alot.) I can't really define what a soul is, or how we know we have them or if we have them, etc. Is it life itself or consciousness, is it our "selves" or what? It's supposed to live on after we die, is all I "know". I like thinking about this question though. It makes me happy, because it brings up new questions about the mind, theology, and ancient hominids. woohoo! If I were pinned down, I have been sort of fond of the idea that once an interesting creature appeared, God gave them souls. Humans happen to be interesting, but I don't know when the population reached that point (if they did). --tibac

05-01-2003, 06:43 PM	#12
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	Much better answer wildernesse. I guess not all tenets of belief have to be ironed out. As for Badfish, I specifically stated twice that I wanted the views of a theist who didn't take genesis literally, so I could care less of your answers. I'm already aware of the fundamentalist answer to this question. If you have a problem with common descent, take it over to Evo/Cre. Don't derail this thread.

05-01-2003, 07:04 PM	#13
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	Is this bloke in heaven (or hell, or nothing)?

05-01-2003, 08:55 PM	#15
Monkeybot Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: North Carolina Posts: 8,102	Maybe Homo ergaster got its own Messiah, just like we Homo sapiens got Jesus. See, I could be a theologian if I wanted to

05-02-2003, 07:43 AM	#18
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	Where do these folks start to acquire souls? That's a good question! I say somewhere around... oooooh.... closes eyes, points The fifth one from the left, on the top row. Because God told me.

05-02-2003, 10:43 AM	#19
Badfish Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Death Valley, CA Posts: 1,738	Those skulls could still be human, have you seen some of the pigmys and other african tribesmen? Sure some are old, but anglo-saxon and african skulls can be different looking. The only one that has me suspicious is the "A" skull, but it just may be an old monkey or an extinct monkey. And they don't look ordered very well, "L" looks out of place with the rest..

05-02-2003, 11:09 AM	#20
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The only one that has me suspicious is the "A" skull, but it just may be an old monkey or an extinct monkey. A, I believe, is a chimpanzee skull. Those skulls could still be human, have you seen some of the pigmys and other african tribesmen? Sure some are old, but anglo-saxon and african skulls can be different looking. I think if you compared any of the pre-H. Sapiens skulls with modern human skulls, whether African, European, Asian, or other, you would see obvious differences, for example in brain size. In other words, skulls of modern humans are more similar to each other than to any of our ancestor's skulls.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.