(September 24, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Zazzy Wrote:(September 24, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm not a bible thumper. Most of the guys here initally thought I never read one. Know that I do carfully word what I have said to accuratly reflect what the bible says, and not a given denominational belief. That said know that I can pile on the verses any time you like.I'm still asking if we can stick to science, and you can have the Bible conversation with others. If you don't like those parameters, then again, just say you don't want to have that conversation. They are the same parameters all scientists hold each other to.
Quote: Because I have been subject to all manor of tricks and double talk over the last few years from both sides.Well, AVT conversations get heated. But I like honest conversation, and I've dealt with you honestly so far.
Quote:After 6000 thousand years what does 'proof' of the "intangable" (Your word) look like? What does it look like now?I have no idea what evidence for a soul, for example, would look like. Since you are proposing it, it would be up to you to provide that evidence. If it's simply a matter of faith, then it can't be a part of a scientific discussion and it would be off the table.
Quote:Again just tell me what you are looking for specifically and I will see what i can do.Any kind of observational/experimental evidence that would support your proposal. If you like, I can give you a few areas to consider beginning with.
The soul is consciencousness, what evidence of consciencous is there after one dies?
Just because there is no proof of consciencous after one dies does it mean one could not have possiably lived?
