Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

So, what is your personal definition of a soul, Drich? How did soulless humans differ from humans with souls? Can humans without souls create art? You obviously believe that they can create cities.

Off topic, how did you meet your wife? Was she addicted to heroin when you met her? Were you addicted to drugs?

It goes with the dictionary defination. It is spiritual consciencnousness that transcends this life.

Yes humans with out a soul can express themselves artistically as those expressions are a by product of intellegence. (They have chimps and elephants who paint) as far as this expression being called or identified as art is upto the beholder. Yes like i said chimps now can be taught to construct and build on a basic level how much more could a fully indentical 'homo-monkeyus' man?

Met my wife at church in a collage age singles group I was incharge of. I knew of her past and knew she struggled with herion before, but didnot know it was an active struggle till she od'ed in a barns and noble bathroom after we were married.

No, in my high school days I smoked some pot a few times but in the end did not like being high/drunk out of consciencous control.

Funny thing I did a Sunday night sermon on my high school days several years before I even met her. When she was in recovery she debated on whether or not to come back the. Her mom remember my story and told her the "singles minister was a drug addict" so she came because of my pot use.

---

Your confusing applied science and fringe/theoretical science. The rules and proofs of applied science doesn't apply to the fringe science used in the scientific theory of orgins. For one to say fringe science has the same stablity and reliability as applied science takes a lot more faith than it seems your willing to admit to.

So Drich, are you just going to ignore how completely you've misrepresented science in the past, and just pretend like you still know what you're talking about? Not gonna work; you can't just sweep your multiple, easily rebutted errors under the rug here.

What the hell do you know about science? Every single thing you've said about it here- and elsewhere, since we've had this "fringe science" discussion before, and I was able to nail you on that, too- I've been able to prove one hundred percent wrong. Your only response has been mockery, where you haven't just tried to ignore it into non-existence. Are we going to get some admission, as to how wrong you've been?

You want to talk about science start your own thread. Me ignoring you is keeping my thread on track.

---

Is it your belief that just because something is immaterial it can not be apart of our life?

That depends on what you mean by "a part." By definition, anything immaterial would have no way of interacting with the material. So while there might be an infinite number of immaterial objects or beings, we would never know, and it wouldn't matter.

That's not true. Love is immaterial, yet it profoundly impacts our existence.

---

Please explain the difference between cured and healed, Drich.

I am still curious how you met your wife. Was she addicted when you met her? Did you say that you had cancer? What kind?

I did a cancer thread its upto date more or less except my biopsy scheduled for Tuesday.

They don't know what I have. They thought prostate, then it checked out (biopsy came back clean) then leukemia as there are markers but the profile was not complete, now they are checking the bone marrow to rule out cancer or some other blood disorder.

---

The world at large acknoweledges the soul

What is commonly known as the soul is nothing more than flowery semantics, a metaphor if one wills, for the emotional state and the conscience experienced. The soul is no more real than the heart is the center of emotion and love.

Actually like it or not it is well defined in soceity.