Akhenaten wrote:Sonoman, you said in the above statement that:

Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.

So according to you the soul is in the brain and the body. What happens when you share a body like these conjoined twins that only have one body but two heads?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... China.html

Look at these poor parasitic twins. How many souls?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=betgxtosi7Y


Who gets the soul in this case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo


What about when there are two bodies but one shared brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lQ_QBxdwQ

What about when you have one body and a head but no brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... pzKNI&NR=1

It's a no-brainer, Akhenaten. They're called "freaks" and without abnormalities in genetic code transmission happening here and there, evolutionary change itself would not occur. I have no idea what is going on soul-wise with those examples you cite that are exceptions to Sonoman's Official Biomystical Archonic rule of each body having its own unique soul to animate it.

Youkrst, your posts are just getting cuter by the hour! You must be spending a lot of time going over each soundbite's load of sneering..oops, searing repaste. Keep up the good diversionary work, your child's play promoting backbiting and petty squabbles instead of reasoned discussion on Booklist, but I wouldn't quit your day job quite yet. Oprah may have a spot for cartoon cloud speak wisdom comics since she's never invited me on her show to tell my fabulous story. Which actually is pretty fabulous despite your raving reviews.

conjoined twins and absorbing fetuses are not hereditary traits, but rather an environmental circumstance. It is a gestational malfunction, not a genetic mutation.

That is to say, there isn't an allele for conjoined twins, so that if a conjoined twinn reproduced they would not pass on a gene for that condition. (to my knowledge)

Youkrst, your posts are just getting cuter by the hour! You must be spending a lot of time going over each soundbite's load of sneering..oops, searing repaste. Keep up the good diversionary work, your child's play promoting backbiting and petty squabbles instead of reasoned discussion on Booklist, but I wouldn't quit your day job quite yet. Oprah may have a spot for cartoon cloud speak wisdom comics since she's never invited me on her show to tell my fabulous story. Which actually is pretty fabulous despite your raving reviews.

Yorky is the resident troll.
His posts are by and large trollish. His behavior is overlooked simply because he's on the side of the resident atheists.
Moderators here will always turn a blind eye toward him.

It's cowardly biased on the part of the moderators to threaten to ban me while yorky tells people to fuck off.
But it's actually quite telling.
As long as yorky is in the cheering section for anti-religious bigotry, he will always be welcomed and excused by the moderators.

That's fine by me. Just as long as the moderators don't start crying when my tone becomes just as trollish, just as mocking, just as disrespectful, and just as bigoted.

Cry me a river, Mr. Moderator.

Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.

How can you talk about souls as though you know anything about them? Souls have never been demonstrated to exist. There is literally no fact that can be said about a soul, other than that which was said in fiction which is known to be the creation of human imagination.

… I have no idea what is going on soul-wise with those examples you cite that are exceptions to Sonoman's Official Biomystical Archonic rule of each body having its own unique soul to animate it.

This is better. You really do have no idea and that is the honest thing to say. But knowing this, how can you so confidently tell us what is happening with regular people? How would you distinguish somebody with a soul which follows your arbitrarily decided rules, and somebody who consumed their twin in utero who otherwise shows no outward sign?

Seeing as there is no evidentiary footing for your initial claims about the soul to body ratio, how is it more difficult for you to fabricate a rule about conjoined twins? Anything you say about the status of their souls will be equally arbitrary and without reference to the physical world.

Given evolution, how do you distinguish which of our ancestor was the first to acquire a soul? Given that we know that it’s the brain, a physical object, which is responsible for the behavior of humans, what makes you think souls have anything to do with it, other than the fictional stories I mentioned above?

when my tone becomes just as trollish

"becomes"

I thought this was the science board? How'd the "soul" stuff make it's way over here?

Vishnu wrote:I thought this was the science board? How'd the "soul" stuff make it's way over here?

Yeah, it's too bad. For a minute there I thought we were going to go into the topic of spirit possession. Recall this from a couple of posts back:

sonoman wrote:. . . no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind. The Hindus and all believers in reincarnation have it wrong. Only Spirits are able to move from body to body through time and space. Spirits can appear in different people, e.g. the Spirit of Elijah reappearing in John the Baptist and John and Elijah's Spirit appearing in my work.

I love the confidence that "no two souls can occupy the same body." But it's interesting to look at the concept of spirit possession. It just so happens I was just reading about this in Sir James Frazer's THE GOLDEN BOUGH. The belief in spirit possession is ubiquitous in many religions and cultures, though the interpretations tend to vary wildly.

Frazer wrote:The belief in temporary incarnation or inspiration is world-wide. Certain persons are supposed to be possessed from time to time by a spirit or deity; while the possession lasts, their own personality lies in abeyance, the presence of the spirit is revealed by convulsive shiverings and shakings of the man’s whole body, by wild gestures and excited looks, all of which are referred, not to the man himself, but to the spirit which has entered into him.

So, yeah, spirits enter the body and this is frequently indicated by "wild gestures and excited looks."

But here's the weird thing. Someone from east Asia might be inclined to believe the spirit was the incarnation of animals. And the Polynesians believed the person was in the throes of some rude oracle. In ancient Greece, the person was being visited by one of their deities. In Cambodia the person in the throes of such convulsions are believed to have the power to stop the plague.

In southeast Ethiopia, the majority of the possessed are women whose spirits "demand luxury goods to alleviate their condition." LOL

And then here in America, such an episode might be viewed as the work of a demon or ghost. In some Christian sects the the person undergoing this trance behavior might add a little variety to the formula by speaking in tongues which is often believed to be "language of the spirit", a "heavenly language", or perhaps the language of angels, take your choice.

So what's interesting is that everyone seems to just make up their own hoakey sort of explanation that JUST HAPPENS TO COINCIDE WITH THEIR OWN BELIEFS. So, a Christian will find a Christian sort of explanation. A Hindu will find a Hindu sort of explanation, and so on.

And there lies the domain of subjective belief. To someone outside these belief systems, they all seem equally preposterous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_possession

I respect Dawkins for the scientist that he is. I’ve read a couple of his books, both very well written.
But Dawkins is in the habit of proselytizing. His writings are chock-full of theory dressed as fact. That is what a skilled writer and orator, like Dawkins, can accomplish.

In the video Dawkins prefaces his thought experiment which asserts Man’s “greats grandfather was a fish” by stating that the scientific answer is “the true answer.”

Let’s take a couple of steps back and put this into perspective:

The theory of Evolution, accepted by many theists and non theists, however powerful its explanation of the origin of species by natural selection/random variation is a Hypothesis proposed by science.

What is a Hypothesis?
Here is a definition of hypothesis:

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.


Now, for those of you who are always more than willing to dilute your demands for strict scientific adherence for the sake of promoting your worldview:

Evolution, as a proposed explanation for the origin of species, including homo sapiens, which by the way Charles Darwin purposely avoided discussing in Origin of Species and atheistic evolutionary biologists like Dawkins always refer to when claiming the origin of Man has been determined – Evolution MUST be testable if it is to be considered a scientific hypothesis, EFFIN’ PERIOD!!
That is my assertion here. To blow this off like Johnson is dishonest and cowardly.

The evolutionary origin of Man as claimed by Dawkins in this video and his book is NOT a “scientific truth” (Dawkins words) for it is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, nor can there be any observational confirmation to establish it as a fact. It is a “proposed explanation.” Still yet, a scientific proposed explanation at some point needs to be “rigorously tested.” Dawkins claim that our “greats” grandfather was a fish is by definition pending rigorous testing at some future time.
Don’t hold your breath.

FACT:

Evolution is a highly complex phenomena.
Did I say “HIGHLY” complex phenomena?
Yes, I did.

Just as complex is the fossil record. Johnson has implied in his garbled patronizing rhetoric that the fossil record is evidence enough that Man’s evolutionary origin has been established.
To my knowledge, the fossil record has NOT established Man’s “greats” ancestral grandpappy was a fish. If it has, prove me wrong and provide the EVIDENCE here, please.


FACT:
A Science Apostle here has made the claim that you are either an evolution by natural selection kind of guy, or you are a Creationist. In other words, “you are either with us or against us”

FALSE:
A person can recognize and acknowledge the explanatory effectiveness of EBNS and NOT support claims that it is fact, particularly as it relates to claims of the origin of Man.
Evolution is very much a working hypothesis, AKA a work in progress. It is idiotic to believe it to be established fact, dishonest to promote it as fact, and deceitful to dress it as fact for young people.
To do so is to indoctrinate a young impressionable mind that is essentially prey for an ideological predator.



Evolution is primarily Theory laden:

Theory:

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

Scientific Theory:

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.


It seems to be a stretch to call evolution a scientific theory when it has yet to establish a “well CONFIRMED explanation of the origin of Man and can not fulfill the criteria imposed on it by the scientific method; it can not be tested, it can not be empirically verified, and it can NOT be falsified.
Johnson’s childish response to my asserting this was weak. It’s also highly disingenuous of people like him who demand scientific confirmation for some things and throw confirmation standards out of the window for other things.

You are about to get your black belt in scientific dishonestly, Johnson.
One more degree and its yours.

I thought this was the science board? How'd the "soul" stuff make it's way over here?

It became a non-scientific board the minute Johnson threw out true scientific evidentiary demands.

ant wrote:I respect Dawkins for the scientist that he is. I’ve read a couple of his books, both very well written.
But Dawkins is in the habit of proselytizing. His writings are chock-full of theory dressed as fact. That is what a skilled writer and orator, like Dawkins, can accomplish.

In the video Dawkins prefaces his thought experiment which asserts Man’s “greats grandfather was a fish” by stating that the scientific answer is “the true answer.”

In the video, Dawkins is simply a guy discussing a way to envision the process of evolution. It's very telling that you have such problems with it.

Perhaps it's simplistic to say we evolved from fish. It's kind of a shorthand way to refer to the fact that we evolved from simpler (aquatic) life forms. It's like saying there's a gene for long legs. That said, we know that life first developed in the seas and apparently the very first vertebrates were fish. We probably evolved from those vertebrates. So what's the problem? There are tons of anatomical similarities between humans and fish. The evidence is mounting.

"The Fish Within Us"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... in-us.html

"Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

It is a Creationist tactic to constantly look for "weaknesses" in science, especially in connection with evolutionary theory. Look out when they start defining the word "theory." Big red flag, that.

Are you questioning germ theory? The existence of atoms? Nope, just evolution. And my goodness, you do get bent out of shape when it comes to Dawkins talking about evolution. Creationists do that too.

If you aren't technically a Creationist, you sure do think like one.

You're obviously very motivated to find room for non-scientific explanations of the world so as to make room for "God"—the great catchall phrase for the unknown.

Oh, and the claim that Dawkins is "proselytizing" a scientific worldview, that's very Creationist too. Why shouldn't Dawkins promote a scientific worldview? The scientific worldview is the only worldview supported by real world evidence. If you don't care about evidence, that's fine. Just be ready for those who claim—evidence and logic be damned!—that they channel the Spirt of Elijah.