Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[dlamberth]

Wrong is wrong.

Yep, which are ancient middle-eastern creation myths that have continued even today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, which are ancient middle-eastern creation myths that have continued even today.

We call them "mission fields".

 

[GenemZ]

bet: do something in order to gain something else.
Animals fight or race for food, mate, etc.
What is the point?

Its safe to bet that you do not understand what betting means!

 

[juvenissun]

Its safe to bet that you do not understand what betting means!

OK, so I don't. what does bet mean?

 

[Frank Robert]

Animals (with soul) have any idea about the age of the earth?
What you said denied what you insisted.

That sounds like a word salad. You need to explain that to me in understandable detail.

 

[Frank Robert]

Of course animals do not know they have soul. It only take one who has spirit to know what is soul. There is high contrast between the two.

In philosophy, religion, and folk belief, spirit is simply defined as the vital principle or animating essence within humans or, in some views, all living things. I don't you would believe a bacteria or lower animals would have any sense of a soul. Perhaps some of the higher animals do have such a sense but that is something we can not know for sure.

Yes, any human can sense that there is something else in the body beyond the body itself. This is a very simple recognition.

I am not sure an atheist would but you would have to ask them.

However, all animals do not have that simple understanding. For example, animals feel happy, but they can never know what is happiness.

I believe that most people who have pets such would think differently.

 

[juvenissun]

In philosophy, religion, and folk belief, spirit is simply defined as the vital principle or animating essence within humans or, in some views, all living things. I don't you would believe a bacteria or lower animals would have any sense of a soul. Perhaps some of the higher animals do have such a sense but that is something we can not know for sure.

I am not sure an atheist would but you would have to ask them.

I believe that most people who have pets such would think differently.

If one attribute every human behaviors to neuron_biology, then of course, one may have (unproven) reasons not to accept the concept of soul or spirit. But if one do not follow that line of argument of imagination, then the differences between soul and spirit are very very clear. It is like the difference in level of knowledge between a preschooler and a Ph.D. (e.g. a dog and a person) A dog may have some sense of "now ± 5 minutes" (soul function). But will it have a sense of "yesterday" or "tomorrow" (spiritual function)?

 

[Hans Blaster]

If one attribute every human behaviors to neuron_biology, then of course, one may have (unproven) reasons not to accept the concept of soul or spirit. But if one do not follow that line of argument of imagination, then the differences between soul and spirit are very very clear. It is like the difference in level of knowledge between a preschooler and a Ph.D. (e.g. a dog and a person) A dog may have some sense of "now ± 5 minutes" (soul function). But will it have a sense of "yesterday" or "tomorrow" (spiritual function)?

As a remote "user" writing text to a screen, I have no reason to be certain that *you* have any of these properties (the memory, awareness, etc. ones that are supported in humans, not the "spirt/soul" ones that are purely theological.)

 

[juvenissun]

As a remote "user" writing text to a screen, I have no reason to be certain that *you* have any of these properties (the memory, awareness, etc. ones that are supported in humans, not the "spirt/soul" ones that are purely theological.)

Whatever you call it, it is a feature far far more superior than animals have.
That is why human is human and animals are animals.

 

[Frank Robert]

If one attribute every human behaviors to neuron_biology, then of course, one may have (unproven) reasons not to accept the concept of soul or spirit. But if one do not follow that line of argument of imagination, then the differences between soul and spirit are very very clear. It is like the difference in level of knowledge between a preschooler and a Ph.D. (e.g. a dog and a person) A dog may have some sense of "now ± 5 minutes" (soul function). But will it have a sense of "yesterday" or "tomorrow" (spiritual function)?

Consciousness is evident in humans and some animals. Soul is a belief not shared by everyone.

 

[Halbhh]

Consciousness is evident in humans and some animals. Soul is a belief not shared by everyone.

Soul.

It's a thing. It's sorta subtle, hard to pin down, but all sort of people have experienced soul in many ways, levels.

It's something other than just....instinct or intelligence, it seems. It's a kind of...quality....

Maybe music can help get at it:

 

[Halbhh]

There are so many kinds of songs that kind of get at soul, or something that is hard to pin down, a timeless thing.

These are just a few that have that odd appeal it's hard to explain:

almost every genre of music probably. Here's one I remember as a kid, from a type of music I'd never tune to today:

 

[Hans Blaster]

Whatever you call it, it is a feature far far more superior than animals have.
That is why human is human and animals are animals.

Humans are animals, are all posters human?

 

[Aussie Pete]

You've no evidence that any of that is true, ithervthan your choice to
believe your chosen ubterpretation,
ofan old book is Truth.

A book with a lot of gross error built into it.

Perhaps you need to work on your spelling. I think I know what you mean. Correct me if I am wrong. The evidence is clear enough. Man's interpretation of that evidence is the variable. There is a new science text book in schools every year. Why? Because science continually gets it wrong. God's word does not change. That's because God got it right first time. What gross errors have you found in the Bible? It's not a science text book, but there are references to the natural world that the ancients could not have known.

Your analogy is bad. Show me anyplace where arithmetic has been altered in the last few millenia.

It's a good analogy. Arithmetic errors are common these days. I still use cash. Watching kids try to work out change without a computer is proof that evolution is garbage. People are going backwards, not forward.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's a good analogy. Arithmetic errors are common these days. I still use cash. Watching kids try to work out change without a computer is proof that evolution is garbage. People are going backwards, not forward.

The "analogy" wasn't about some kid who can't add straight. It was about the "fact of math" changing. That isn't the kind of thing that "changes" in science that annoys people like AV.

 

[Astrid]

Perhaps you need to work on your spelling. I think I know what you mean. Correct me if I am wrong. The evidence is clear enough. Man's interpretation of that evidence is the variable. There is a new science text book in schools every year. Why? Because science continually gets it wrong. God's word does not change. That's because God got it right first time. What gross errors have you found in the Bible? It's not a science text book, but there are references to the natural world that the ancients could not have known.

It's a good analogy. Arithmetic errors are common these days. I still use cash. Watching kids try to work out change without a computer is proof that evolution is garbage. People are going backwards, not forward.

I never have been any good texting on a phone.
Other than that, my command of English is better than yours.

Your comments on the nature of science are not to be taken seriously.

Data does not change and theories seldom do. Its not as you describe.

Surely you know there's megabucks in text books and it's not
new info but new bribes and kickbacks that drive text replacement,
in all subjects.
As your for your "proof" that evolution is going backwards, that only applies to your subspecies. We Han Chinese
would keep surpassing you anyway of course but your going backwards does accelerste the process. : D

 

[sjastro]

As your for your "proof" that evolution is going backwards, that only applies to your subspecies. We Han Chinese
would keep surpassing you anyway of course but your going backwards does accelerste the process. : D

I thought the Japanese were the smartest or so they claim......

 

[dlamberth]

Perhaps you need to work on your spelling. I think I know what you mean. Correct me if I am wrong. The evidence is clear enough. Man's interpretation of that evidence is the variable. There is a new science text book in schools every year. Why? Because science continually gets it wrong.

They why is because science learns new things into how things work. Not so with the Bible. That's not what that sacred text is about.

God's word does not change. That's because God got it right first time. What gross errors have you found in the Bible? It's not a science text book, but there are references to the natural world that the ancients could not have known.

God's word doesn't change. But as His creation itself shows us, it does change.

 

[trophy33]

They why is because science learns new things into how things work. Not so with the Bible. That's not what that sacred text is about.


God's word doesn't change. But as His creation itself shows us, it does change.

Actually, Bible also records theological progress from Abraham, to Israel, to Christianity.

So its not so rigid, either. Thats why elementary Christian creeds are so short - not many things are fixed as certain, even for faith.

 

[Bradskii]

Watching kids try to work out change without a computer is proof that evolution is garbage.

I'm gonna cut that out and paste it in my treasure trove of quotes that I collect.