Christian Necrophobes

[Darth Executor]

Scientifically impossible. To argue this is to wantonly and deliberately spread lies.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ical-existence

Unfortunately it's not scientifically impossible for you to be a retard who can't even follow a simple conversation.

[Tassman]

Unfortunately it's not scientifically impossible for you to be a retard who can't even follow a simple conversation.

Oh, I thought you claimed that "Adam and Eve were the first humans", did I misunderstand you? It's scientifically impossible that they were the first humans, as my link illustrated.

I am talking about God shaping a mound of dirt in the rough shape of a human then morphing it into a living human.

[37818]

Oh, I thought you claimed that "Adam and Eve were the first humans", did I misunderstand you? It's scientifically impossible that they were the first humans, as my link illustrated.

Explain how the DNA evidence makes it impossible for a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch?

[whag]

Are you retarded? I just told you I was not talking about Neanderthals and CroMags. The two I am talking about are the two types of homo sapiens I hypothesized, one with a soul and the other without. Stop bringing them up, they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

It was pretty obvious why I brought them up again. There's no need to hypothesize an anatomically modern hominid when an empirically verifiable anatomically modern hominid, CroMag, existed. Though slightly more cumbersome, Neanderthal would've served that purpose, as well. You make your faith harder to maintain with this nonsense by needing to invent another biological stock for this purpose. What makes the empirically verified species inadequate for the ensoulment?

On the contrary, there are plenty who still exhibit this characteristic. Culture, art, blade production and animistic tendencies have nothing to do with it. The sole visible difference (right now) is that they cannot comprehend sentience and are otherwise high functioning automatons (this is what modern science claims we all are) indistinguishable from other humans. Such soulless individuals need not even be atheist, they could simply be automatons who incorporate religious acts into their routine.

All the more reason why you needn't hypothesize a separate anatomically modern hominid sufficient for ensoulment. The world had plenty of these brute "automatons" available for "modifying" (your gerund). There's no need to shoehorn an unnecessary species into the picture. If there is, explain why.

I can't tell if you're serious about the mound of dirt being shaped into the first man. If you are, you burden yourself in feeling obligated (even if just partially) to believe something that was never meant to be taken literally.

[JimL]

Explain how the DNA evidence makes it impossible for a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch?

Is there no depth of the ludicrous to which defenders of the faith will not descend in its defense. First off you are making it up. Second, such a notion is neither taught nor is it in the bible.

[whag]

Explain how the DNA evidence makes it impossible for a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch?

Because the DNA contains evidence of a history--genes for tails turned off, for instance.

[37818]

Because the DNA contains evidence of a history--genes for tails turned off, for instance.

Evidence of a history or basic coding found in most all animal life. The switchs determining how the code will be used. Such as bird beaks and the human jaw. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ever-knew.html

[Darth Executor]

It was pretty obvious why I brought them up again. There's no need to hypothesize an anatomically modern hominid when an empirically verifiable anatomically modern hominid, CroMag, existed. Though slightly more cumbersome, Neanderthal would've served that purpose, as well. You make your faith harder to maintain with this nonsense by needing to invent another biological stock for this purpose. What makes the empirically verified species inadequate for the ensoulment?

I already explained what: the soulless likely still exist in modern human stock, so whether the divergence showed up in pre-humans is irrelevant and an unnecessary complication of a concept that is apparently already difficult to get across.

All the more reason why you needn't hypothesize a separate anatomically modern hominid sufficient for ensoulment. The world had plenty of these brute "automatons" available for "modifying" (your gerund). There's no need to shoehorn an unnecessary species into the picture. If there is, explain why.

If the soulless still exist today then saying "neanderthals were ensouled" doesn't quite cover it since there are no neanderthals left. My theory was not originally created in an effort to harmonize genesis with evolutionary theory (that's just a nice side-effect). I originally formulated it after observing and engaging in discussions on free will. If it turns out to be true I'll end up being pretty much a modern Darwin. Its obvious relation to our origins became apparent afterwards, but that application was derived from the original, not the other way around.

I can't tell if you're serious about the mound of dirt being shaped into the first man. If you are, you burden yourself in feeling obligated (even if just partially) to believe something that was never meant to be taken literally.

I feel no need to believe it literally, my model simply does not require evolution so it remains as an option.

[whag]

Evidence of a history or basic coding found in most all animal life. The switchs determining how the code will be used. Such as bird beaks and the human jaw. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ever-knew.html

Evidence of history. There's a reason atavisms in primates would never be expressed in a bird beak. We don't share a common ancestor with birds.

[whag]

I already explained what: the soulless likely still exist in modern human stock, so whether the divergence showed up in pre-humans is irrelevand and an unnecessary complication of a concept that is apparently already difficult to get across.

What does "soulless likely still exist" mean or have anything to do with it?

We're not talking about "divergence" but a simple biological stock sufficient to be ensouled. You're complicating it by imagining an unknown, undiscovered species.

If the soulless still exist today then saying "neanderthals were ensouled" doesn't quite cover it since there are no neanderthals left.

What does "if the soulless still exist today" mean or have anything to do with the discussion?

My theory was not originally created in an effort to harmonize genesis with evolutionary theory (that's just a nice side-effect). I originally formulated it after observing and engaging in discussions on free will. If it turns out to be true I'll end up being pretty much a modern Darwin.

It's not a theory but a hypothesis. Theories are frameworks that tie consilient lines of evidence to together.

I feel no need to believe it literally, my model simply does not require evolution so it remains as an option.

If that's your model, then ANY non-evolutionary explanation is an option. You mentioned "man from a mound of dirt" specifically because it's biblical and the only non evolutionary option.

[Darth Executor]

What does "soulless likely still exist" mean or have anything to do with it?

We're not talking about "divergence" but a simple biological stock sufficient to be ensouled. You're complicating it by imagining an unknown, undiscovered species.

1 - soulless humans evolve
2 - God creates Adam and Eve.
3 - Adam and Eve are thrown out of Eden
4 - Adam and Eve's descendants intermarry with soulless humans.
5 - Their descendants can inherit souls and slowly spread all over the world.

We now have two types of humans, those descended from Adam and Eve, with souls, and the rest, without.

Are you getting what I'm saying now?

What does "if the soulless still exist today" mean or have anything to do with the discussion?

See above.

It's not a theory but a hypothesis. Theories are frameworks that tie consilient lines of evidence to together.

It's what I'm doing.

If that's your model, then ANY non-evolutionary explanation is an option. You mentioned "man from a mound of dirt" specifically because it's biblical and the only non evolutionary option.

Yes, so? I don't need to believe every alternative is possible, nor do I, nor do you.

[tabibito]

Tut. If you consider the Biblical accounts wholly valid - everyone is descended from Noah ... so there would be no-one now who was not descended from Adam and Eve.

[Darth Executor]

Tut. If you consider the Biblical accounts wholly valid - everyone is descended from Noah ... so there would be no-one now who was not descended from Adam and Eve.

1. I don't believe in a worldwide flood but I haven't really given the issue much thought.
2. I said "can inherit souls", not "will inherit souls" so being one of their descendants would not guarantee it.

[Tassman]

Explain how the DNA evidence makes it impossible for a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch?

The evidence does not support the notion of a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch.

"the calculation by evolutionary geneticists that the smallest size the population of humans could have experienced when it spread from Africa throughout the world was about 2250 individuals. That comes from back-calculating the minimum size of a human group that could have given rise to the extensive genetic diversity present today in non-African humans. Further, that figure is based on conservative assumptions and is very likely to be an underestimate."

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ical-existence

[Sparko]

Oliver Sacks.
Christopher Hitchens.

Once again, please stop wasting my time with silly appeals to fear.

OK let me talk r-e-a-l s-l-o-w for you.

I was commenting that it is easy to be sure of your convictions that there is no God when you are healthy and have no need for God. A lot of people turn to God only when they are faced with very tough life situations, like serious health problems, the death of loved ones, losing your job and home, being responsible for something that makes you feel very guilty, etc. When you become desperate, you have a harder time being so convinced their is no God, and will hedge your bets. You will try to bargain with God, or ask for help or forgiveness.

It is like death itself to a young person. They know what death is, but it is an abstract idea to them, and not personal. It is easy for them to dismiss or put in the back of their heads that one day they will die. You seem like such a person. Are you young?

Now I will stop wasting your time, since I already said I was going to leave this thread because I said all I wanted to. You can disagree all you want, but until you are faced with such situations, you really have no idea how you will react. But God is there and waiting for you to turn to him. It is never too late while you are alive. I was an atheist for much of my younger life, and as I got older I became an agnostic. I didn't become a Christian until I was 40 years old. So I pretty much understand your point of view, but you really don't understand mine.