NikiMcbee - I took no insult and knew you were not singling me out, my friend!

Stealthunter - my point to you I think you may have missed. It is simply that we should look at the origin of the planet to first determine if the planet itself has existed and provided a suitable environment for evolution since evolution requires a timeline of billions of years. evolution, on earth, cannot occur if the earth was either A) Not around, or B) not suitable environmentally.

That has been my point in here from my first posting on. ;) Maybe we should start a rumble over who posted it first, to add some more fun to this thread! :haha:

On NeonSamurai's and antikristuseke's exchange over the term "evolution", this: it derives from biology and dals with the continuous developement of species that appear on basis of the design of earlier lifeforms whose genetic design undergoes changes. in this, the term evolution and natural selection cannot be separated from each other. biologic evolution means natural selection, natural selection means biologic evolution. All biologic phenomenons must be assessed in relation to this most fundamental theory in the field of biology. Formally, it is devided into three categories, or fields of interest:
1.) macro evolution, meaning the appearing of new species and orders of specimen, and subordinate classes and categories,
2.) micro evolution, dealing with the chnages and devleopement within a given species, and forming the field of research of population genetics, and
3.) the molecular, genetic and embryologic basis of evolution, dealing with how molecular changes in the genetic material influence form and function of an organism in a given environemnt, increasing or decreasing it's survivability and fitness in that ecosystem.

That evolution is always linear, always irreversible, and always constant, is being questioned at the present time. Life forms of various evolutionary phases do not exist one after another, but can exist parallel to each other. Changes can be in adding or deleting features, but chnaging the feature snot necessarily always mean an optimization of the fitness of the design, but in fact can mean the neutralising of a former advanatge of the design. Random mutations play a role. There are alternative evolution theories to that of Darwin (Savanna-Ape-Theory), namely the Theory of Neoteny (which is historically interesting, but plays no big role today anymore), and the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis which claims it can explain some details of the specifics of man better than Darwin's Savanna-Theory.

None of these three theories, Savanna, Neoteny and Aquatic Ape, are complete models explaining all and every details of man's design.

Unclear is the value of exotic theories like Rupert Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Fields. But at least it is fascinating. :) sheldrake has ofered a big ammount of money for evidence that proves his theory to be wrong, and did that long time ago. As far as I know he still is the owner of that money. Oh those British. Typical. :lol:



Letum, Neal,

that souls exist is a metaphysical assumption which one can believe - or not. Buddha for example explicitly denied the existence of individual souls when gotten asked for it. And what I say? I say: I do not know. Nobody does. All we believe to know, is just knoweldge we only believe to have. But nevertheless we just believe, and do not know. No clever mindgame we play does change that.

And at the risk that I fell victim to some linguistic trap or misunderstood translation: that consciousness can be "measured" both in quantity and quality, is new to me - both as a psychologist and practitioner and teacher of meditation. You can observe results of consciousness, and draw correlations between activity in brain areas, and the individual's subjective mental status, and you can measure electric potentials in the brain without knowing what the single set of impulses does exactly contain in information; and you can stimulate brain regions with electrodes and activate the physiological reaction patterns belonging to your sensual equipment. But can you read the thoiughts of an individual from an EEG diagram? Cn you dose the electric stimulus in such a way that it doe snot only create a feeling of being hungry, but a certain landscape as an ikmage to the inner eye, this landscape and no other? To say one could measure quantity and quality of consciousness, is a claim a bit too big, even more when considering a brain that got drugged, is in coma, REM phase or deep meditation - we only have scratched the surface regarding this big, wide, deep ocean the human brain, and the ohenomeneon of consciousness is. It becomes even more complicated when introducing the terms "awareness".

I would say it different: you can observe consciousness, your own and that of others, in action. Stay on the safe side and leave it to that statement! ;)

I base on the translation of "consciousness" being "Bewußtsein".

What exactly do you mean with the "human soul"? Concrete examples, please.

Discussing what the 'human soul' exactly means and/or is would be more than enough material for a separate thread.

Are you trying to say that the English language does not exist?

I would say that language is a fact, and you said facts exist.

I think therefore I am. That idea exists.

It probably means something different to some people, in my book it's basically the "person", their mental being.

In other words, religions will exist as long as people are unable to face their own mortality.

Your soul is what make you unique to everyone else! With a billion people in the world you are not looking through any of their eyes, even identical twins have separate souls, it's what makes you you!:yep: Your body may die but your soul lives on!:up: "MY Belief":yep:

"Gimmie yer stupid soul!"

Sorry...had an MST3K moment. :oops:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QI5GpCAOFD.../Soultaker.jpg

No, the English language is real, but it doesn't exist.

It's not physical; you can't put it in a wheelbarrow and there is no reason
to think there is Platonic world of forms in which language exists as
legitimately as rocks do in another non-physical world.

Perhaps. But then again, fear of mortality does not mean transcendance is not possible. ;)

Hmm...and to think English is my primary language yet it does not exist!

Yeah, that's kinda what I mean. :yep:

Haha, man, I need to rent some of those from Netflix, they make great party videos!!:rock:

See, I can tell you know a lot more about this subject than me. I never studied evolution, other than the top level synopsis that most people are familiar with (and I have two of his books in my library, part of the Easton Press 100 Greatest books, but never have gotten around to reading them yet). Darwin's theories make perfect sense to me, and lord knows he spent many years working on his concepts and making observations.

(you can tell I love the multiquote feature here :88))

Awesome, I agree, I don't really know. I just know what I believe...and that changes constantly.

Granted. Depending on how transcendence is defined, one could say that it is possible before death; indeed, one could say it is only possible before death.

Please, someone in here tell me I'm not the only one who thinks that the New Testament is an excellent book of metaphors that many people have (mistakenly) interpreted literally? We're all born into a garden of Eden. We all eat from the tree of knowledge and lose our innocence. We all experince hell when we do something bad, and heaven when we do something good. Come on, it's not rocket science.

A long, but worthwhile, read, for those who think that the human soul exists:

http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

Might just challenge some of your conceptions...but hey, maybe not. Can't do with another brick removed from God's wall, eh?

Like they'll bother taking it seriously.:nope:

People will believe what they want, despite contradicting evidence or an astonishing LACK of evidence for what they believe.

THE SOUL

What is it? We have conciousness. We have self-awareness. Is the soul real, the part of us that lives on after we die? Or is it simply the fact that we can see the end ahead and don't want to believe that we actually stop at that point.

GOD

Does god exist? Were we actually created by a supreme being? Or do we see a universe so much greater in scope than we are and can't imagine that it wasn't made by someone else?

I don't know. But I see no evidence one way or the other.

Mullet Boy: "Led Zeppelin had it wrong. There is no stairway to heaven."

Ken Doll Boy: "Is Sabbath wrong too, maaan?!"