(September 24, 2013 at 5:25 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Do you mean consciousness, or conscientiousness? They are very different things. I think you mean consciousness. No doubt that humans have consciousness. Usually I hear theists say souls are more than mere consciousness, though.

youre proably thinking of living awareness. As in a monkey or dog is aware that he is alive.

Quote:So far, absolutely none, since death is the definitional opposite of consciousness.

So what would remain after 6000 years give or take? So I ask again what could possiably be provided to be offered as proof?

Quote:I don't understand this. Are you asking if because there is no evidence of consciousness after death, that means that it is impossible?

I am saying just because there is no proof of life does not mean one could not have lived.

Quote:Having never died, I can't say. From from a biological viewpoint, it is very difficult to understand how this could happen (except by a magical, goddidit argument), since consciousness is a product of brain chemistry. Many people are alive but not conscious, adding to that difficulty. I can render you unconscious by tweaking your brain chemistry. Maybe a different word than "consciousness"is needed.

What about soul? It seem we both need a word that describes the level of consciouness that would only include the higher brain functions found only in man.

(September 24, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Set aside my ad hoc stuff for now, as I know Zazzy would like

I have no right to expect you to do anything I would like or not like. Your argument is yours to make as you choose- I want to have a scientific conversation with Drich, and there are parameters for that- one of which is the right to change your mind (which is different than moving the goalposts dishonestly). He can choose to do that or not. So can you. I'm enjoying your posts here, anyway.

(September 24, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Okay, Drich, I wanted to be done with this, but then something popped into my mind. A sort of "revelation", if you will.

I went over your statement so that I could be quite clear on this, that my ideas would be completely in line with what you said. Set aside my ad hoc stuff for now, as I know Zazzy would like, and answer me this:

How long ago do you believe Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden? The general Creationist consensus is 6,000 years, correct? Your theory says that cities were developed by soulless "monkey-men," which explains how Cain was able to breed with them to create new people that would have souls. Am I right?

Now, do you believe that soul-carrying men, created in God's image, spread across the entire Earth, creating new races of man (African, Asian, Caucasian, Native American, etc.) in less than 6,000 years? There are records of homo sapien man entering the western hemisphere from 14,300 years ago. Or were these all soulless "monkey-men?" The kind that Cain bred with? Are all the people of the world except those that are mentioned in the Bible soulless monkey-men? Are Native Americans "monkey-men" since they had almost no contact with the eastern world for 5500 years? Are they only now getting their souls?

Your theory explains evolution if all humans came from the middle east and were of one race. It does not account for the creation of race, or explain the records of Homo sapien (not monkey-man) existence dating back tens of thousands of years across the globe.

Please provide your theory on the existence of race, and if all the people of the world that are not racially similar to Adam are soulless descendents of monkey-men, or at best, half-breeds.

who says they were all one race?

Do you not know who the wives of the sons of noah were? where they settled? start reading at genesis 10. Each son and his wife repersents the orgins of an entire race of people.

As far as the details of one specific people where they come from when they did x or z I have no idea.

Think about it though after the Ark came the tower of bable and that meant that we were orginally divided by language and not skin color, which means as people paired off their gene pools got shallower. which would tend to limit thier ablity to reproduce as diversly as they did closer to the time of noah. (Which included a whole new/old, Race/Breed of humans)

(September 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Drich Wrote: Where/when did I say this?

I god damn quoted you saying it. D:

Unless your trademark lack of clarity confused me.

(September 24, 2013 at 5:48 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you not know who the wives of the sons of noah were? where they settled? start reading at genesis 10. Each son and his wife repersents the orgins of an entire race of people.

As far as the details of one specific people where they come from when they did x or z I have no idea.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Christians plagiarized the story of Noah's Ark from the Epic Of Gilgamesh. In fact, the ancient writers stole most of the Holy Bible from Egyptian, Hindu, and Jewish religions. Moses is stolen from Sargon of Akkad, Satan is stolen from Set, and Mary and Jesus were stolen from Isis, Osiris, and Horus. The writers also swiped the Ten Commandments from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

There's also no geological evidence of a global flood. How the hell can 32,000 species of animal survive on a man-made ship. Noah is also something like 900 years old.

(September 24, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Drich Wrote: Where/when did I say this?

I god damn quoted you saying it. D:

Unless your trademark lack of clarity confused me.

DRICH Wrote:Just because there is no proof of consciencous after one dies does it mean one could not have possiably lived?

This is what you quoted.

This has nothing to do with belief.

I simple made the statement that if one does not have evidence of a person living a consciencous life, it doesn't mean he did not live one.

(September 24, 2013 at 5:39 pm)Drich Wrote: youre proably thinking of living awareness. As in a monkey or dog is aware that he is alive.

That is what consciousness means- awareness. And since my dogs aren't even on the median level of dog intelligence, I don't have much respect for dog consciousness currently.

Quote:So what would remain after 6000 years give or take?

Why is 6,000 years the timeframe you are working with? Is it because that is the generally accepted creationist-derived age of the universe?

Quote:So I ask again what could possiably be provided to be offered as proof?

And I say again, I don't know. I'm not making a claim; you are. It would be up to you to provide evidence.

Quote:I am saying just because there is no proof of life does not mean one could not have lived.

There is all sorts of proof of life- there's a whole science- Biology- based around it. Are you talking about life after death?

Quote:What about soul? It seem we both need a word that describes the level of consciouness that would only include the higher brain functions found only in man.

There's freaky evidence that higher brain functions are not limited to man, but since I know what you're saying, I won't press that point.

Since you still haven't defined "soul" adequately, I can't say I'm comfortable with that term. But if it will move this conversation along, sure. Soul it is.

Since you said you couldn't say that souls were immaterial, does that mean you think they could have a physiological/genetic basis? Because that really would be problematic for reasons I'll get into if you like.

(September 24, 2013 at 5:57 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Christians plagiarized the story of Noah's Ark from the Epic Of Gilgamesh. In fact, the ancient writers stole most of the Holy Bible from Egyptian, Hindu, and Jewish religions. Moses is stolen from Sargon of Akkad, Satan is stolen from Set, and Mary and Jesus were stolen from Isis, Osiris, and Horus. The writers also swiped the Ten Commandments from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Well then Good News Every one!
If the flood did indeed happen then wouldn't there be more than one source? think about it for a second, now throw that thought away and think about it honestly! If the sons of Noah split off and all became a nation unto themselves wouldn't the story of the flood follow all of the non 'Choosen' people as well?

Quote:There's also no geological evidence of a global flood. How the hell can 32,000 species of animal survive on a man-made ship. Noah is also something like 900 years old.

If the global flood happened then what are you looking for that is not already here?

In otherwords all other floods would contain a record in the strata debris that had been moved from higher ground and then being settled to lower ground... that is because water is being pushed from one point of orgin to another. Now imagine a flood that consumes everything all at once. where then does the debris go? No where. it all stays in one place. remember it wasn't just the rain, the earth produced geysers.

MAGIC!!
You evolutionists and geologists and other --ists... just can't fathom the power of MAGIC!
MAGIC made all that's written to have happened.
MAGIC is the most logical solution to all scientific problems concerning the biblical time period.
MAGIC is so obvious, you atheists just can't see it...
MAGIC did it, so no one can see how MAGIC did it!
MAGIC is brilliant!
And who/what-ever can make MAGIC is always right!

(September 24, 2013 at 6:25 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Why is 6,000 years the timeframe you are working with? Is it because that is the generally accepted creationist-derived age of the universe?

no, because from now till the time of adam via the jewish geneologies and records of time from Christ to Adam about 6000 years have past. Meaning It was 6000 years ago that man made in the image of God was expelled from the garden.

Quote:And I say again, I don't know. I'm not making a claim; you are. It would be up to you to provide evidence.

If we can not agree of what proof would look like then it would be foolish for me to search for something your looking for, but can not describe.

Quote:There is all sorts of proof of life- there's a whole science- Biology- based around it. Are you talking about life after death?

No what i am saying is that if there is proof of a soul, it will be found in our living. once we die the what physical proof there is will also be Gone.

Quote:Since you said you couldn't say that souls were immaterial, does that mean you think they could have a physiological/genetic basis? Because that really would be problematic for reasons I'll get into if you like.

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

Honestly I don't know and really dont care too much. The above mentioning of the 21 grams we loose at death is what stuck in my mind good bad or indifferent.