Dear God, Eve what have you done?

[Belac Enrobso]

You know Drich, real "science" like. Reason with math to back it up.

[Drich]

I'm asking for the scientific kind.

What if science is not set up to process/explain everything in the universe, if science can not explain what is not known then how can 'science' be used to explain or proove God? (Because God is a current unknown to science.)

Or better yet what if the goal of 'science' is to take God out of creation by explaining the processes God used to create everything? The idea being if we can understand a process like graveity then graveity can not be of God somehow.

If this is the case then wouldn't 'science' (not the process but the commentary used to explain various evidences) be naturally at odds with the idea of God?

You said your not a fan of raceism. If you were black in the late 1960 living in mississippi, would you look to a member of the KKK to honor your civial rights? why not? Probably because the KKK member would be baised, even if this man could be considered to be good in other aspects of his life, when it comes to civial rights he would be more than lacking.

Like wise in science the conclusion maybe biased, but for the most part the data itself is generally sound. learn to take the data and think for yourself with it.

[Esquilax]

What I've done is outline your behaivor here in this thread and you do not even seem to be aware of it. Chulta dreaming asked for the same sort of proof you did, I gave it to him because he defined what he was looking for. You blew past it. Then you asked what I considered to be proof, I told you, you ignored it. So as I said WHETHER it Makes sense OR NOT... You deny the primise or default in disbelief.
(or something along those lines)

I didn't ask what you considered proof, I asked what it was that convinced you of this claim you've made. To which your response was "the holy spirit," which... I mean, come on.

Maybe I haven't made my position clear enough here: if you truly were just convinced by the holy spirit that this was true, if that's the only reason you're willing to give for why you initially accepted this, then the entire structure of the argument falls apart. From the perspective of an atheist, you've just admitted that your position stems from nothing more than your own imagination. Consider this: suppose I was building a house, and my architect comes to me with the plans he's proposing we build, and I quickly discover that there is no first floor on the plans, just a second one. When I point this out to the architect, he tells me that the second floor is nice enough that he's convinced we should start building this house. Should I entertain anything else this architect has to say? And would the architect be justified in calling me unreasonable because I won't listen to how wonderful his second floor is?

tell me you really do not believe this propaganda.. The way Ideas work is that people who have popular ideas seek funding, when they find it they then seek proof. then the magic happens. Because at that point anything can be considered proof so long as someone else does not already have a claim on it, or if that other person can be trivialized and dismissed. Just like 'global warming.'

I'm not going to indulge in dodgeball, but I will remind you we aren't discussing popular ideas, just the one you yourself have formulated. Funding has nothing to do with it: the fucking nine-eleven truthers had an idea, independent of how marketable it was. It just isn't a rational one, as per the formation of ideas.

Please stop obfuscating. It's dishonest.

The point? someone saw that they could make money if the ran around telling 'smart people' the sky was falling, once the money began to flow the 'science' followed.

Holy fucking shit, did you really just digress that much? You must not have anything relevant to say, huh?

This is how your precious idea farm works. Science follows the money.

Proof of this conspiracy to hide ideas that aren't marketable, in the fields of geology, biology and life sciences, please. If not, then you're just delaying to avoid admitting you're wrong, again.

Then why ignore the current discussion by attacking my methodology rather than addressing what can supposedly be refuted with proof?

Because one doesn't need to refute something that has no basis in itself; you have the burden of proof here, and so far you've provided nothing at all, beyond the faith that you have, and you might see why that means nothing to me. How can I refute you with proof? Why do I need to, when nobody in the mainstream scientific community agrees with you? Isn't that, coupled with the nothing you've provided in support of your claim, sufficient?

Not at all, Mr. Dreaming is a good example. In his request for proof he wanted to know where I thought Eden was. I told Him and gave him an indepth explaination as to why I thought that. Two other member have since picked up that discussion and I am dicussing facts with them.

All i am looking for is direction, and a chance to validate your request.

Except that I understand that the location of eden, even if what you gave wasn't an argument from ignorance, doesn't prove your claim. It helps it along, yes, but it doesn't show anything relevant to your claim of million-year old people breeding with separate, evolved man.

As I asked you earlier, which I think is a fair question given the claim you've made: if evolved man and ensouled man are genetically identical, how do you tell the difference between them sufficient to show that there is a difference at all? And circumstantial handwaving about where ensouled man might have physically been located isn't an answer to this.

What do you think main stream science reason was that there is not any fossils in the richest deposit of FOSSIL FUEL on the planet? The conditions are similar in alaska and in canada, and yet many fossils have been found in those regions.

I don't know what their reasoning is, though I know for a fact their position isn't that this is where the garden of eden was located. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please show the peer reviewed, mainstream scientific findings that the garden of eden is there, and not spurious arguments from ignorance.

kinda how Atheist anthem works eh? A blanket cry for proof that is "phrased in such a way as to eliminate from the outset contradictory evidence in favor of exclusively discussing only what confirms your view, separated from the larger context of everything that doesn't confirm it."

How is asking you to demonstrate your claims a position which eliminates your ability to provide evidence for your claim? Go on, this should be a laugh. Do tell.

Or else you can throw this unsupported assertion in the trash with the rest of them.

I see you don't like it when the tables are turned. Too bad, you can squeal all you like, but my request in this setting is just as valid as yours.
;P

It really isn't.

So you're saying you are infact stupid unless I can demonstrate that you are not?

Are... are you serious? Your response... you actually just said "well, you're dumb!"

What are you, fucking seven?

You asked what convinced me. I answered the Holy Spirit, but I also said I have been lead to other sources, all you need do it tell me what you are looking for and I can help you find them.

Protip: if the holy spirit led you to other sources, those sources are going to be the thing I'm asking about. You must understand, after all this time on an atheist forum, that we don't think the holy spirit exists.

Seems like we might be getting somewhere though: what are these other sources? Skip the eden claim, that's already there, and wrong. What else?

Indeed, so if and when you are ready to tell me what more than faith you want/need i will be happy to help you find it.

Okay, fine. I didn't want to play unfairly by asking for things we both know you'll be unable to provide, mostly because I didn't want to waste my time typing things fully in the knowledge that your next post will be a simpering list of reasons why you can't provide that proof, but since you insist:

Evidence that would convince me:

A theoretical model of how one can scientifically detect the soul, coupled with an additional model of how the presence of a soul could be detected in the remains of ancient humans, so we can pinpoint the time ensouled man entered the gene pool.

An explanation of why the bible does not reflect the already religious, civil and agricultural world Adam and Eve would have stepped into.

Literally any reason at all why I should accept this as anything other than something you have made up.

Go for it, Drich. The first one would be best; after all, how can you say that man has a soul due to interbreeding with created man if you can't even detect the presence of a soul at all, hmm?

[Drich]

You know Drich, real "science" like. Reason with math to back it up.

ah, ok.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del'...ical_proof

[Jacob(smooth)]

Well that's that then. Hallelujah. .

[Belac Enrobso]

That's interesting Drich Ill look more into that, I've always been told there was no evidence for the existence of God, thank you for enlightening me with this. That wraps up this pissing contest I believe. I'm all out of piss.

[Drich]

I didn't ask what you considered proof, I asked what it was that convinced you of this claim you've made. To which your response was "the holy spirit," which... I mean, come on.

Maybe I haven't made my position clear enough here: if you truly were just convinced by the holy spirit that this was true, if that's the only reason you're willing to give for why you initially accepted this, then the entire structure of the argument falls apart. From the perspective of an atheist, you've just admitted that your position stems from nothing more than your own imagination. Consider this: suppose I was building a house, and my architect comes to me with the plans he's proposing we build, and I quickly discover that there is no first floor on the plans, just a second one. When I point this out to the architect, he tells me that the second floor is nice enough that he's convinced we should start building this house. Should I entertain anything else this architect has to say? And would the architect be justified in calling me unreasonable because I won't listen to how wonderful his second floor is?

tell me you really do not believe this propaganda.. The way Ideas work is that people who have popular ideas seek funding, when they find it they then seek proof. then the magic happens. Because at that point anything can be considered proof so long as someone else does not already have a claim on it, or if that other person can be trivialized and dismissed. Just like 'global warming.'

I'm not going to indulge in dodgeball, but I will remind you we aren't discussing popular ideas, just the one you yourself have formulated. Funding has nothing to do with it: the fucking nine-eleven truthers had an idea, independent of how marketable it was. It just isn't a rational one, as per the formation of ideas.

Please stop obfuscating. It's dishonest.

The point? someone saw that they could make money if the ran around telling 'smart people' the sky was falling, once the money began to flow the 'science' followed.

Holy fucking shit, did you really just digress that much? You must not have anything relevant to say, huh?

This is how your precious idea farm works. Science follows the money.

Proof of this conspiracy to hide ideas that aren't marketable, in the fields of geology, biology and life sciences, please. If not, then you're just delaying to avoid admitting you're wrong, again.

Then why ignore the current discussion by attacking my methodology rather than addressing what can supposedly be refuted with proof?

Because one doesn't need to refute something that has no basis in itself; you have the burden of proof here, and so far you've provided nothing at all, beyond the faith that you have, and you might see why that means nothing to me. How can I refute you with proof? Why do I need to, when nobody in the mainstream scientific community agrees with you? Isn't that, coupled with the nothing you've provided in support of your claim, sufficient?

Not at all, Mr. Dreaming is a good example. In his request for proof he wanted to know where I thought Eden was. I told Him and gave him an indepth explaination as to why I thought that. Two other member have since picked up that discussion and I am dicussing facts with them.

All i am looking for is direction, and a chance to validate your request.

Except that I understand that the location of eden, even if what you gave wasn't an argument from ignorance, doesn't prove your claim. It helps it along, yes, but it doesn't show anything relevant to your claim of million-year old people breeding with separate, evolved man.

As I asked you earlier, which I think is a fair question given the claim you've made: if evolved man and ensouled man are genetically identical, how do you tell the difference between them sufficient to show that there is a difference at all? And circumstantial handwaving about where ensouled man might have physically been located isn't an answer to this.

What do you think main stream science reason was that there is not any fossils in the richest deposit of FOSSIL FUEL on the planet? The conditions are similar in alaska and in canada, and yet many fossils have been found in those regions.

I don't know what their reasoning is, though I know for a fact their position isn't that this is where the garden of eden was located. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please show the peer reviewed, mainstream scientific findings that the garden of eden is there, and not spurious arguments from ignorance.

kinda how Atheist anthem works eh? A blanket cry for proof that is "phrased in such a way as to eliminate from the outset contradictory evidence in favor of exclusively discussing only what confirms your view, separated from the larger context of everything that doesn't confirm it."

How is asking you to demonstrate your claims a position which eliminates your ability to provide evidence for your claim? Go on, this should be a laugh. Do tell.

Or else you can throw this unsupported assertion in the trash with the rest of them.

I see you don't like it when the tables are turned. Too bad, you can squeal all you like, but my request in this setting is just as valid as yours.
;P

It really isn't.

So you're saying you are infact stupid unless I can demonstrate that you are not?

Are... are you serious? Your response... you actually just said "well, you're dumb!"

What are you, fucking seven?

You asked what convinced me. I answered the Holy Spirit, but I also said I have been lead to other sources, all you need do it tell me what you are looking for and I can help you find them.

Protip: if the holy spirit led you to other sources, those sources are going to be the thing I'm asking about. You must understand, after all this time on an atheist forum, that we don't think the holy spirit exists.

Seems like we might be getting somewhere though: what are these other sources? Skip the eden claim, that's already there, and wrong. What else?

I am going to side step the above as a 'pissing contest.' (as you don't real ask or answer any questions in the above post.)

Okay, fine. I didn't want to play unfairly by asking for things we both know you'll be unable to provide, mostly because I didn't want to waste my time typing things fully in the knowledge that your next post will be a simpering list of reasons why you can't provide that proof, but since you insist:

Evidence that would convince me:

Finally!!!

A theoretical model of how one can scientifically detect the soul, coupled with an additional model of how the presence of a soul could be detected in the remains of ancient humans, so we can pinpoint the time ensouled man entered the gene pool.

First we must identify what a soul is or isn't. The soul is not a tangable physical object, so to look for physical evidence now or 6000 years ago is a fools errand. Not to mention even if you had a working model of physical soul detection, what specimine would you test it on? do you have adam and eve's remains?

That said SCIENCE has identified the soul as a consciencous or a manifestation of our selfawareness, and this cant be tested.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bioc...e-says-yes

even so, one must provide a living test subject, human remains are not viable for testing.

An explanation of why the bible does not reflect the already religious, civil and agricultural world Adam and Eve would have stepped into.

Because before the introduction of the Soul into the population of Man, 'Man' was nothing more than a platoon of up right monkeys. The bible does not describe the behaviorial patterns of any animals except in passing. Which it does here as well. It says Cain moved into a city after the murder of Abel, and it also says he was married. To whom if not one of the monkey people?

Literally any reason at all why I should accept this as anything other than something you have made up.

"You" shouldn't unless your looking for a reason to seek out God, but feel you can not because of an unresolved issue you have with creationism verse evolution.
If this is not the case then go about your business, this should not impact your life any more than the issue of thor when the Hulk was able to pick up his Hammer.

Go for it, Drich. The first one would be best; after all, how can you say that man has a soul due to interbreeding with created man if you can't even detect the presence of a soul at all, hmm?

..and if I can using science then what?

---

Well that's that then. Hallelujah. .

This post is a perfect example of why I ask 'what kind of proof are you looking for.'

One man's 'proof' is another man's toilet paper.

So rather than give a thread full of ass wipers enough ammo to keep them busy for a month, I want to side step the BS and get down to what you are looking for specificly.

[Mudhammam]

Mitochondrial Eve is much more interesting to speculate about.

[Esquilax]

I am going to side step the above as a 'pissing contest.' (as you don't real ask or answer any questions in the above post.)

Yes, pretending I didn't bring up the things I did is a much easier thing to do than refuting them. Your failure to do so has been noted.

First we must identify what a soul is or isn't. The soul is not a tangable physical object, so to look for physical evidence now or 6000 years ago is a fools errand. Not to mention even if you had a working model of physical soul detection, what specimine would you test it on? do you have adam and eve's remains?

Right, so if you can't detect it, how did you confirm that it's there at all?

That said SCIENCE has identified the soul as a consciencous or a manifestation of our selfawareness, and this cant be tested.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bioc...e-says-yes

Yeah, what you actually linked to was an article filled with vague ramblings, the only thing close to a scientific reference being an offhand remark about the double slit experiment, which basically just asserts "quantum mechanics is weird, therefore a soul, maybe." It doesn't state what you say it does, so let's dial back on what "science has identified," hmm? This is either dishonesty, or wishful thinking on your part.

even so, one must provide a living test subject, human remains are not viable for testing.

Right, so how did you determine there was a point that the soul was bred into mankind.

Because before the introduction of the Soul into the population of Man, 'Man' was nothing more than a platoon of up right monkeys. The bible does not describe the behaviorial patterns of any animals except in passing.

Okay, so first of all, demonstrably wrong: mankind had religions, agriculture, and full human-ness six thousand years ago. And again, "it doesn't say it didn't happen," is not evidence that it did happen.

Which it does here as well. It says Cain moved into a city after the murder of Abel, and it also says he was married. To whom if not one of the monkey people?

Yeah, the bible I just read says Cain went to live in "the land of Nod." There's no reference to a city, and "land," can just be.... you know, land.

And pointing out a problem with the bible's logic does not mean your workaround is true: it just means there's a problem with the bible's logic. What you just committed is an argument from ignorance, but funnily enough, I've argued with christians who are happy to admit that the human species was begat through incest to begin with, because Adam and Eve had "perfect genes," so... let's not pretend you've found the only truth, here.

"You" shouldn't unless your looking for a reason to seek out God, but feel you can not because of an unresolved issue you have with creationism verse evolution.

Is that the reason you believe it?

If this is not the case then go about your business, this should not impact your life any more than the issue of thor when the Hulk was able to pick up his Hammer.

Oh, I enjoy theoretical discussions. I just wish I could get you to engage in it too.

..and if I can using science then what?

You haven't so far. If you do, that'll lead to follow on investigations on my part, certainly.

[Drich]

Yes, pretending I didn't bring up the things I did is a much easier thing to do than refuting them. Your failure to do so has been noted.

From what I saw you said nothing of substance, just empty conjecture. Now if you want me to revisit something specifically just highlight it.

Right, so if you can't detect it, how did you confirm that it's there at all?

As mentioned in the artical found in psychology today, the soul is not a physical object, but a word that describes self awareness.

Yeah, what you actually linked to was an article filled with vague ramblings, the only thing close to a scientific reference being an offhand remark about the double slit experiment, which basically just asserts "quantum mechanics is weird, therefore a soul, maybe." It doesn't state what you say it does, so let's dial back on what "science has identified," hmm? This is either dishonesty, or wishful thinking on your part.

What you seem to be looking for is scientific proof that a soul exists as you currently understand the existance of a soul. which by all reason and measure of logic is a fools errand.
(But it does support my assertion a few posts back that people like you first come up with a concept and then look for proof to support it rather than honestly gather information and form a conclusion to where ever it leads.)
In the above mentioned artical the soul is identified as a catch all term for self awareness, it even goes as far as seperating itself from the 'spiritual' defination.. But it seems you did not read the whole artical. I guess I am not the only one guilty of that.

Right, so how did you determine there was a point that the soul was bred into mankind.

When the bible identified Adam "as being a living soul." and through the oral tradition of the Jews that says the soul of man is given by the father, and the body or blood of man is given by the mother.

Because before the introduction of the Soul into the population of Man, 'Man' was nothing more than a platoon of up right monkeys. The bible does not describe the behaviorial patterns of any animals except in passing.

Okay, so first of all, demonstrably wrong: mankind had religions, agriculture, and full human-ness six thousand years ago. And again, "it doesn't say it didn't happen," is not evidence that it did happen.

is it your contention that religion=souls?
I did not say man was a blank slate, I said man was little more than a troop of monkeys. meaning they were without a soul, not without minds of their own.

Yeah, the bible I just read says Cain went to live in "the land of Nod." There's no reference to a city, and "land," can just be.... you know, land.

Where he built the city of Enoch... Do you know the difference between a city and a house? do you know the difference between a house and a villiage, a village and a town, and town and a city? aside from the size and shape of the buildings POPULATION is what seperates these communities.

And pointing out a problem with the bible's logic does not mean your workaround is true: it just means there's a problem with the bible's logic.

So it is you estimation that in 6000 years of telling and retelling this story no one has caught this error aside from you and your peers?

Or was it that pervious generations simply understood the situation more completely?

What you just committed is an argument from ignorance, but funnily enough, I've argued with christians who are happy to admit that the human species was begat through incest to begin with, because Adam and Eve had "perfect genes," so... let's not pretend you've found the only truth, here.

They are only responsiable for what they understand.

Is that the reason you believe it?

I believe because I stood before Christ, and went though judgement, and for a brief moment felt the love and completeness that welcomed all who believe. I want to experience that love and completeness for eternity.

..and if I can using science then what?

You haven't so far. If you do, that'll lead to follow on investigations on my part, certainly.

that wasn't the question now was it?