The Jellyfish in the brains of science deeply insult mankind.

[dad]

Show that a spirit is real first. Then after you get over that hurdle, show that a spirit could affect anything, let alone certain areas of the brain.

Who should I show that to? Should I show it to deaf and blind to anything but the physical science?

Or should we ask the billions of people over all time who have experienced spiritual realities and even spirits?

Should we make the criteria that a spirit must appear in bodily form speaking and being virtually physical and show itself to a panel of scientists? Or should we expect that those who seek and come to God and ask and wait would have the real chance to experience spiritual things?

 

[tas8831]

I would say Clinically and completely brain dead would be pretty ischemic, wouldn't you ?

I would say let's see the corroboration and verification that this was the case.

If the brain is nothing more than a biological organism and it is DEAD. there is not a hard drive for the memories at that point, nothing more would be stored in the biological materials those "memories" are still somewhere. The fact that they still exist suggests there is a soul.

See above.

 

[tas8831]

Who should I show that to? Should I show it to deaf and blind to anything but the physical science?

Or should we ask the billions of people over all time who have experienced spiritual realities and even spirits?

Should we make the criteria that a spirit must appear in bodily form speaking and being virtually physical and show itself to a panel of scientists? Or should we expect that those who seek and come to God and ask and wait would have the real chance to experience spiritual things?

So you are admitting that all you have is wishful thinking.

About time.

 

[dad]

Well, the thing is humans are just land creatures. Your belief system elevates us to some untouchable ethereal infused life form despite all of the evidence showing us to be made of the exact same materials and that the structure of that material shows us that we're related to all other forms of life here. You've done nothing to doubt any of the reams upon reams of research showing this.

There is no research showing we are related to jellyfish. There is religion only. Why would I lower myself to an animals level or bug level? Did Jesus die to save the beatles? Did a chariot from heaven come down to take a jellyfish to the realm and kingdom of God, as it did for Elijah?

We are worth many sparrows.

there's far more evidence in support of it, than could be squirted with all the chanel # 5 on the planet let alone that it constitutes the biggest lie ever conceived and not yet found out by scientists who are trained in the scientific method working on it all day, every day.

The scientific method is the method that avoids truth and is guaranteed to be unable to find it. No matter how hard they work. They need to stop working at avoiding the truth to have a chance of finding truth.

Why can't you debunk even basic elements of Evolution rather than posting this aimless pathetic rhetoric you pump out in lieu?

Name the basic elements and I will debunk the living daylights out of them?

 

[AV1611VET]

The limbic system is responsible for emotions, and is part of the brain, not the “soul.” Are you intentionally misrepresenting the facts, or just ignorant of them?

Ya ... and oil is pumped from reservoirs to holding tanks.

The reservoirs house the oil until such time as the holding tanks house the oil.

What's your point?

 

[cfyahoo08]

I would say let's see the corroboration and verification that this was the case.



See above.

There are not a lot but this one would be fun to discuss

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study/

 

[tas8831]

Uh, yeah, if you were NOT the person I was communicating with and you pulled out a question I asked them it is breaking apart the communication in the context of it and it looses a great deal of the original meaning, you need to have the conversation before it and after it as supporting conversation for it to be in context.

Um.... No...

"to use only part of something that someone said, so that the original meaning is changed"


One very interesting thing about context, in the context of what you are accusing me of - YOU answered a question not addressed to You!!! You are accusing me of doing what YOU did!!!

Bugeyedcreepy asked Yesme:
"What's a soul and how do you know it exists?"

YOU then asked Bugeyedcreepy:
"Do you love your family ?"

That I replied to with:
"Non sequitur?
Concession accepted."


And here you are, claiming that my response was "out of context" because I was not part of your previous conversation.... Which you were not, either.

Amazing.

 

[cfyahoo08]

Um.... No...

"to use only part of something that someone said, so that the original meaning is changed"


One very interesting thing about context, in the context of what you are accusing me of - YOU answered a question not addressed to You!!! You are accusing me of doing what YOU did!!!

Bugeyedcreepy asked Yesme:
"What's a soul and how do you know it exists?"

YOU then asked Bugeyedcreepy:
"Do you love your family ?"

That I replied to with:
"Non sequitur?
Concession accepted."


And here you are, claiming that my response was "out of context" because I was not part of your previous conversation.... Which you were not, either.

Amazing.

and yet you do not show his response to my question

 

[tas8831]

There are not a lot but this one would be fun to discuss

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study/

Yes, it is fun to discuss anecdotes and subjective claims.

Parnia claimed elsewhere, regarding this study, that "The evidence thus far suggests that in the first few minutes after death, consciousness is not annihilated."

I guess after a few minutes, the soul dies...

I also note that despite the superlatives regarding this study, it is actually pretty hard to find. I have found lots of commentary on it, but the actual study is proved to be elusive... The conclusions, however, as summarized by the U of Southampton:

• The themes relating to the experience of death appear far broader than what has been understood so far, or what has been described as so called near-death experiences.
• In some cases of cardiac arrest, memories of visual awareness compatible with so called out-of-body experiences may correspond with actual events.
• A higher proportion of people may have vivid death experiences, but do not recall them due to the effects of brain injury or sedative drugs on memory circuits.
• Widely used yet scientifically imprecise terms such as near-death and out-of-body experiences may not be sufficient to describe the actual experience of death. Future studies should focus on cardiac arrest, which is biologically synonymous with death, rather than ill-defined medical states sometimes referred to as ‘near-death’.
• The recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine investigation without prejudice.

Don't seem very conclusive, despite the earlier superlative rhetoric. Looks like, at best, the neurons in the brain are not quite as wimpy as previously considered. Rather than 'dying' after 30-40 seconds sans heartbeat, it may be several minutes. Yay! Soul!

 

[tas8831]

and yet you do not show his response to my question

And yet you cannot bring yourself to admit that you mis-characterized my response to you, and cannot admit that your charge was not only unfounded, but, as I documented, hypocritical.
Whether or not you responded is, in fact, immaterial - your initial response to his question was a non-answer, a non sequitur.
But I am wasting my time on this, you can't get it or won't admit it.

 

[cfyahoo08]

And yet you cannot bring yourself to admit that you mis-characterized my response to you, and cannot admit that your charge was not only unfounded, but, as I documented, hypocritical.
Whether or not you responded is, in fact, immaterial - your initial response to his question was a non-answer, a non sequitur.
But I am wasting my time on this, you can't get it or won't admit it.

My response to him was a question that I then answered and your not posting my response to his answer and attempting to take my words out of context, but nice try, thanks for playing.

 

[dad]

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Ah, so much more dignified...

True. The Almighty Living eternal creator God Personally bestowing life itself on man and making us a living soul is the ultimate dignity and gift.

 

[dad]

You did research this? Please tell us what you read.

I read much the festooning array of claims and fables science deemed to pollute the planet with.

 

[dad]

The thing is.... Question Begging is not a legitimate form of inquiry or argument.

You write about a 'soul' as if this thing has been established.

I'm guessing that your sole bit of 'evidence' for a soul is Scripture and/or religious writings?

The deeper spiritual component of man is not begging or a question, but demonstrated historical fact.

 

[cfyahoo08]

Yes, it is fun to discuss anecdotes and subjective claims.

Parnia claimed elsewhere, regarding this study, that "The evidence thus far suggests that in the first few minutes after death, consciousness is not annihilated."

I guess after a few minutes, the soul dies...

Maybe just yours .. J/K and I liked that you edited your post just before I was able to respond to it, lol. Just curious, I get the possibly wanting "evidence" but why when presented with the possibility of something even slightly credible would you have a knee jerk reaction to it as being incorrect ? Are you so set in your ways that your unable to be objective ?

 

[dad]

Genesis 1:21 tells us that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water. Are you denying the Holy Spirit's words? AND the discoveries of Science? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life... Of course you are. Why should we believe you instead of Science and Scripture?

Adam came from dirt, not the sea. Your obsessing over day 5 to the neglect of the rest of the book and chapter and even verse simply shows us you have some other agenda.

 

[dad]

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Totally false and based on the superstitious views of ancient men who lived thousands of years before Science. Man was made BEFORE the 5th Day on the 3rd Day BEFORE plants, herbs and rain. Genesis 2:4-7 Genesis 1:21 IS speaking of "living animals". Do you know what a living animal is?

Looking at a kid's site I see this

"
On Day Five, God filled the oceans with fish, whales, corals, clams, squid, jellyfish, marine reptiles, and so much more (GENESIS 1:20–21)! These creatures did not come about slowly over millions of years, with corals, sponges, and jellyfish coming first and then fish coming later. All of them were created on the same day by God!

But God wasn’t finished yet. He also created birds and other flying creatures (GENESIS 1:20–21). Imagine the quiet earth with all those beautiful plants suddenly filled with the songs and cries of all kinds of different birds. It must have been amazing. But it wasn’t just birds; God also created bats and flying reptiles on Day Five."

https://answersingenesis.org/kids/days-creation/creation-week-day-five/


"
On Day Six, God commanded the earth to bring forth living creatures (GENESIS 1:24). All of the animals that live (or lived) on the land—such as elephants, horses, and dinosaurs—were created on this day (GENESIS 1:24–25). And each kind was unique and different, from tiny mice to the huge T. rex to howling monkeys. Each one was created to reproduce according to its kind (GENESIS 1:25), so one kind will never turn into another kind. Dogs always have baby dogs, cats always have baby cats, and horses always have baby horses.

After He finished creating the animals, God turned His attention to His most important creation—mankind (GENESIS 1:26). God created man and woman in His very image (GENESIS 1:27), “and God breathed into man the breath of life, and man became a living being” (GENESIS 2:7). Man is unique among all that God made. None of the animals were created in God’s image, only man and woman were. God even created a special place for them to live, the Garden of Eden (GENESIS 2:15).

God created Adam, the first man, from dust (GENESIS 2:7) and made Adam’s wife Eve from his rib (GENESIS 2:21–22). This was the very first marriage, created by God. He blessed them and told them that they were to rule over the earth and fill it with children (GENESIS 1:28)."

https://answersingenesis.org/kids/days-creation/creation-week-day-six/

 

[dad]

So you are admitting that all you have is wishful thinking.

About time.

No. I am pointing out that those who religiously avoid the spiritual would not be expected to see it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. I am pointing out that those who religiously avoid the spiritual would not be expected to see it.

Pfft, I used to believe in ghosts on the basis of little more than shows like Ghosthunters. By the way, that does mean that evidence for deities presented to me even early in life was of lower quality than the "evidence" for ghosts in these shows.

I even have my immediate family in agreement to do anything within their power to make their presence known after they die if they become a ghost, because why not? Wanting to be able to measure claimed spiritual phenomena is not the same as wanting to avoid the spiritual.

 

[dad]

Pfft, I used to believe in ghosts on the basis of little more than shows like Ghosthunters. By the way, that does mean that evidence for deities presented to me even early in life was of lower quality than the "evidence" for ghosts in these shows.

Well then you used to do more than science does/can do...believe in spirits! They religiously avoid it.

I even have my immediate family in agreement to do anything within their power to make their presence known after they die if they become a ghost, because why not?

Jesus eliminated the need for that for believers.

We all go to be together, so we can't help but see them later, alligator.

Wanting to be able to measure claimed spiritual phenomena is not the same as wanting to avoid the spiritual.

In the case of science, it does not include anything but the physical. By design/dogma/methodology. I would ask, if they wanted to include the historically observed and repeated spiritual elements of human experience on earth, why is it that only the physical is allowed/considered/believed/admitted?

That is a bit like saying you want a journey by plane-- and considering only buses, trains, rental cars, and ships as means of travel.