Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

Evidence for your hereditary soul.

what does that look like?
Matter of fact why don't you tell me what the evidences of love and hate are as well, or do you not believe these intangibles do not exist either?
Showing the defination of a soul shows you that soceity has indeed accepted the intangible soul as being apart of our understanding of humanity.

I can define vampire for you, that's not evidence for their existence any more than this definition is evidence for your hereditary soul.

actually defining a vampire tells you what a vampire isn't. Therefore allowing you to identify a vampire when you come across one.

It's not part of biology, genetics or heredity, then. Fail. You've turned your own story into bullshit with that comment. Now you're going to have to come up with another way to reconcile your book with reality, if you want to claim to have done so. What a waste, don't you think? Your story had entertainment value, if little else.

So love and hate are not apart of our biology either? Is this what you are saying?

---

The first place is Genesis 2

The Hebrew word translated "soul" in the Old Testament is nephesh, which simply means "a breathing creature."

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines nephesh as "the essence of life, the act of breathing, taking breath ...

Well that was a very dishonest exegetical effort. Nephesh means a whole lot more than how you represented it.

I really don't understand why you people do this sort of thing. Do you think I won't check? Or is it that you're that dishonest with yourself? If your Arguement was legit then why does it depend on misrepresenting the word you're trying to define?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...5315&t=KJV

---

You said that you were diagnosed with AIDS. not HIV

Long-term nonprogressors (LTNPs), individuals who are infected with HIV, but maintain a CD4 count greater than 500 without antiretroviral therapy with a detectable viral load.[1] Many of these patients have been HIV positive for 30 years without progressing to the point of needing to take medication in order not to develop AIDS.[citation needed] They have been the subject of a great deal of research, since an understanding of their ability to control HIV infection may lead to the development of immune therapies or a therapeutic vaccine.[2]

This is what I found on Wikipedia. Again, the person is not cured/healed from HIV. Their bodies just haven't developed AIDS yet. If you are telling the truth, I hope that you and your wife still use protection.

The diagnosis of aids came with a couple hundred skin leasions. I was given an HIV test and passed the first one, failed the second one and everyone since.

---

God's will: to live in unity with A&E

God's plan of attack: (1) create a garden for A&E to live *AND* (2) create the conditions for abiogenesis to happen so that eventually, through evolution, there are "monkeymen" *precisely* when they're biologically compatible with A&E by the time they're thrown out of the garden.

Now, if God's will is as stated above, why the need to create (2)? The creation of "monkeyman" means God knew A&E would need an evacuation plan so that humanity could live on. If God knew this, then it means God knew he couldn't achieve *his own will* from the get go.

God is incompetent. But what else is new?

Bump.

If the philosophy is sound, then I think the above shows that your theory doesn't output what you want it to output Drich.

I'm sorry I did not see this as a serious inquiry. Just a stab in the dark.

God's will: to live in unity with A&E

God's will was to create man/humanity, and to coexist with man for eternity.

God's plan of attack: (1) create a garden for A&E to live *AND* (2) create the conditions for abiogenesis to happen so that eventually, through evolution, there are "monkeymen" *precisely* when they're biologically compatible with A&E by the time they're thrown out of the garden.

The other 1/2 of the equation was redemption. Why the need for redemption? Because God wants to spend eternity with those who want to be with Him. For this 'choosing' to take place thier must be a choice. The choice is God's expressed will or to be outside of God's expressed will. (Sin)However to be outside of God's expressed will means one ceases to be worthy to spend eternity with God. So enter attonement and what Christ did.

So to amend your initial assumption "god's will" is more than to live with Adam and Eve in the garden. God wants to live with Humanity in Heaven, but only those who want to be there. For that to happen their needed to be choice, and attonement for all the 'bad choices' we make until we make the right one.

Now, if God's will is as stated above, why the need to create (2)? The creation of "monkeyman" means God knew A&E would need an evacuation plan so that humanity could live on. If God knew this, then it means God knew he couldn't achieve *his own will* from the get go.

God is incompetent. But what else is new?

what's new? You appearently did not read or understand why God created Eve. It was for adam, because he needed a mate/helper. Adam was lonely. If I am right adam potentially spent millions of years in the garden, without Eve he would have spent that time alone.

---

Whether I had a false positive or I am an HIV super controller I do not have the HIV virus. I do have a blood disorder that the doctors at UF cancer treatment have not been able to identify as of yet. They said it may have something to do with me testing positive 20+ years ago, but are not sure. I go in for a bone marrow biopsy tues. They orginally thought it was lukiema as I tested positive for cancer markers consistant with prostate cance, and lukiema. But I do not have some protein or some other cancer indicator that would mean a solid diagnosis. Either way I do not have HIV in my system.

So you had a false positive HIV test then.

They are not uncommon and have many causes.

http://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjtestfp.htm

Yes we've had this conversation before.. That is a possiblity, but then again I am having blood related issues again, so if the doctors at UF cancer center can figure out what is wrong then maybe we will have something definitive in a few weeks that explain everything

---

Actuall look up how ancient jews relayed a story. In their traditional story telling they give an overview first then come back and fill in the detail.

http://faculty.smu.edu/rheller/HB7301/HBGramStories.doc

Except the so-called "detail" here is giving a different timeline - one that is inconsistent with the first layer of story telling.

Where do you see an inconsistency?

---

Schizophrenia is something completely different.
Theists tend to be willfully ignorant, preferring the delusion of faith over reality. They are not theistic because of a commonly recognized mental illness.

I was a born-again evangelical Christian for 18 years, from age 27 to age 45.. Looking back, I believe that I had a psychotic break, triggered by too much LSD over too many years. However, my 'conversion testimony' was not significantly different from others I heard during that time.

I suspect that a lot of 'born-again' experiences are similarly triggered by a mental breakdown of some sort. It is extremely common to hear people say that they had hit rock bottom, were at the end of their rope, were up against the wall when they had their "come to Jesus" moment. Our brains can and do play some pretty weird shit on us when our lives are threatened.

Of course, after the initial breakdown, joining a church will surround you with people who reinforce your delusion. Everything about church structure is designed to keep the break from reality internally consistent, so as to prolong it.

Frankly, I think religion evolved as an answer to existential fear. Facing one's own inevitable demise is not easy, and would have been harder for those distant ancestors who first saw a pile of bones and thought "that will be me some day." How do primitive societies fend off deep depression brought on by existential fear? Tell stories about life-after-death!

/ crackpot hypothesis

One could force that square peg into my situation if the only thing that has ever happened to me was bad. However I clearly share many many impossible good things that happen as well. Which completely destroys your assumptions.

---

If you did not see an alteration then maybe you should look a little closer.

And if I'd said there was no alteration you would have a point. Since I didn't, well we'll have to form our own conclusions, won't we?

And if you remember what I said to the new guys was dry sand was just repermanded for doing SOMETHING SIMILAR. Which (if you werent on a witch hunt) would have told you that I too did not see what was done as being completely against the rules, just of that vein.

If you remember dry sand started out doing the same thing just before he started making clear alterations to quoted material.

---

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

Love is completely material. It's a set of physical triggers with a physical effect on our physical brains.

To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This

You can also read about the chemistry - literal chemistry - of love. It's a fascinating subject. There are a pretty significant number of studies and experiments designed to determine what love is.

Nothing mysterious here, sorry. You'll have to look for another argument from I-don't-understand-this-therefore-god.'

That's not true. Certain aspects of love (Eros/storge) do indeed have clear triggers and chemical changes, but not all. Agape and phila are a choice and not a feeling.