Let's discuss this thing called "FAITH!"

Codey -- your brother a boar or a boor?

Francis Crick wrote a challenging book a few years back, "The Scientific Search for the Soul" and, in fact, found we do possess what could be called a soul. Whether it transcends the material world after we are dead is what religiousity tries to address. As if it is really that important -- sans becoming famous enough not to be forgotten by society, isn't it just another egotism of the human condition that some of us have to believe we will live on in some spiritual form? Just where is this "heaven?" Beyond the Horsehead Nebula perhaps? Ray Bradbury's story in "The Martian Chronicles," "Mars Is Heaven," also addresses what humans are hoping to believe will happen to them when they die. It is, of course, exploded as the naive belief is taken advantage of by the Martians just to get rid of us troublesome Earthlings.

I think it is a mistake to claim that it takes faith to accept evolution, since one can go into quite a few museums and examine "missing inks" by the score.

Lightwizard, I'll answer your question regarding whether or not we have a soul and "where is this place called Heaven?"

We ARE a soul, we inhabit a body (that's improved mightily over the eons).

Since the metaphysical definition of "Heaven" is "to grow, to learn, then we are not even living but among the dead if we are not stretching our minds and learning new things or at least understanding same old things at a higher level. Life doesn't allow any of us to remain static, we are either moving ahead, backwards, or sideways.

This is what I've accepted for some time now, haven't found any reason to change it. Maybe we grow to Heaven. Applying the original intent of the thread, we could have some faith that life will improve should we continue to learn new things -- wherever that "life" takes us.

I'm lost -- where did I ask whether or not we had a soul and "where is this place called heaven" was a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question because each an every one of us has their own concept of what heaven might be. If you read Bradbury's story, you would find he believes it is something elusive than can and will be used against us. It's a beautiful parable to the argument of whether or not heaven exists. I think we are in heaven right now and are likely all to stupid to realize it. Perhaps this is what you were headed for? Learning new things? Scientific things? Or a new way to rationalize superstitions?

Interesting LW, my belief is that we are all in Hell right now and must earn our way out of it (and it certainly will not be the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and GW Bushs that acheive this).

So many have said that we can make a heaven or hell for ourselves. Often, circumstances can put us in hell (a living hell it is referred to but as opposed to a dying hell I don't know if it makes much difference). Of course, none of the people you mention have control of whether one makes a heaven or hell on Earth. In fact, they disavow it by relying on the notion that one won't be in heaven or hell until they do die. They only think they have control but in reality they're having a problem keeping themselves out a hell's kitchen and only their money keeps them out -- money they've amassed by fooling others into thinking they have any idea what they are talking about. They have essentially bought their way out with other people's money and a working circle of cronies, including rich daddys.

There is a lot of expertise in the area (isn't it strange) but know one knows for sure You make some good points LW

LW, then, if I hungered to learn something new from what you are saying, would The Martian Chronicles be a good thing to read?

I don't think there is any "hell" to go to dead or alive. But, I do think one way or another we will be made to understand our bad treatment of others. Imagine an abusive parent finally realizing the extent of the damage they've done to their own child.

Just adding my comments to this topic, LW.

LW, how did they "scientifically" prove that we* have a soul?





*not knowing any blue monsters, I'll assume this applies to you too.

Golly, that's why you would have to get the book and read it. Not something that can be explained in a condensed form. Like any other proof of the soul, it's a apothesis and there is no absolute proof -- it just gets one thinking about how we are different as individuals besides our outward appearance and our personalities. The religious concept of a soul is part and parcel of the belief system -- something that one only wants to be true.

Francis Crick proved we are all unique genetically -- this just takes it to it's ultimate extrapolation. It's just as convincing as Darwin's "theory" which used to be a theory -- not it is a fact.

I think microevolution is a fact (we can see it happening) but evolution takes such a long time, I don't think enough time has passed since the theory was proposed to have proper evidence for it to be a fact. Unless you are referring to the fossil record - but that's still observation, not experiment. We humans haven't been around long enough to witness one species evolving into another distinct species (meaning they have the same ancestors but can't produce fertile offspring together.) Am I wrong?


Sophia- if in doubt, why not get your information straight from the source? Read Darwin's Origin of Species .

origin of species book

Believing in evolution (note- I don't mean the single cell theory- I mean natural selection over time) does not require a leap of faith because it is consistent with logic and sceintific information. Microevolution is evident in many species, for example, butterflies which use mimicry - ones that are not poisonous but look like poisonous butterflies don't get eaten, and the non poisonous butterfly population has genetic drift towards wing patterns that look like the poisonous species. This is direct observation confirming natural selection, there are many other examples (read origin of species).

The leap of faith required for religion (I'm assuming you're referring to christianity because you chose evolution as the opposition) is based on a circular argument: the bible proves g-d, g-d proves the bible. There is not much outside evidence, unlike the previous evolution case.

Theories are only as good as they can be usefully applied.
Breeding is a pretty good example of using theories in genetics and evolution -- to a direct purpose.

So many species of cats, dogs, and agricultural varieties that never existed even somewhat before! The results are unmistakable, wide-ranging and useful.

What observable behaviors does Creation Theory predict? What applications has it been applied to, and what results have been acheived?
As a spiritual engineer these are not rhetorical questions.

One species does not evolve into another species. They evolve within the same species. There exists more primitive forms of that same species and those primitive forms are not "different species." Our previous ancestors going back to the lowest mammal form to the forms that swam in the ocean are lines backward within our species. Species develop along the tree of life and are designations based on what differences have occured as the tree grew. It's a way of naming the developments in the animal world of which we belong. Yes, we are mammals -- animals. A difficult thing for the religious egotists to admit.

no, but they branch into different species or form different species. Separate species are animals that cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The theory of evolution requires that the new result eventually would not be able to breed with their ancestor- forming a new species. Evolution is a theory about how new species are formed.


Breeding is an example of selected change, but it's difficult to use this because you have to argue that human intervention is a natural force. But yes, clearly, animals can be bred and change heritable genetic characteristcs over time. Dogs are not complete evidence of evolution, though, because and breed of dog can interbreed with any wolf, cyote, dingo and produce fertile offspring. For example, with artificial insemination, there could be a fertile chihuahua- gray wolf.

no, but they branch into different species or form different species. Separate species are animals that cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The theory of evolution requires that the new result eventually would not be able to breed with their ancestor- forming a new species.


Breeding is an example of selected change, but it's difficult to use this because you have to argue that human intervention is a natural force. But yes, clearly, animals can be bred and change heritable genetic characteristcs over time. Dogs are not complete evidence of evolution, though, because any breed of dog can interbreed with any wolf, cyote, dingo and produce fertile offspring. For example, with artificial insemination, there could be a fertile chihuahua- gray wolf.

That's because nobody except creationists claim that man evolved from ape. Never happened. Science has *NEVER* claimed this. Man and ape evolved from a common ancestor several million years ago. You'll never find a half-man/half-ape because no one claims such a thing ever existed. You will find transitional fossils between the various forms of man and these are very well documented and plentiful. The same goes for transitionals between the various forms of ape. And both transitional sets lead back to a common ancestor. No faith involved, just demonstrable, objective evidence and science.

Excuse my shorthand--common ancestor/descended from--small distinction to me.

And, I still believe unless you were on these digs, and saw this evidence and were properly educated to know what you were seeing--you employ faith. A trust.

You take their word for it. It just seems a lot more palatable or plausible to you. Not saying you're wrong to believe it. But you believe it...because you have faith in what someone has told you.

Now, you guys don't seem to be plucked out of the usual herd. Perhaps you spent a weekend with Leakey, looked over his fossils, and concurred with his assertions. But, the great unwashed simply buy evolution with the same 'penetrating research' as others buy the Bible. None.

Leaky is not the only authority on the subject. One has to start by actually reading "The Origin of the Species" which is quite clear that you haven't, Sofia, or you wouldn't have once again put down that tired old mantra that man evolved from ape.
That you assert we are buying evolution and with no better "penetrating research" than the Bible places you on a level I really don't feel is worth debating with. The notions you display are just quite simply incomprehensible. Once again, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Sure, that's like saying "bullet in the head/a million dollars" Small distinction to me.

It's not a small distinction. Let's assume you have a brother or sister. Did you come from your brother or sister? Or did both of you come from your parents? Now if you live in the deep south, there might not be much difference, but I digress.



There's this amazing thing called a college education. You should try it sometime. There are also these things called books. They're better read than burned. And as a matter of fact, I *AM* properly educated, thank you very much.



No, I accept it because I've examined the evidence personally and have found it to be true. The evidence is available to anyone who wishes to examine it, it's not our fault that you refuse to do so, or refuse to educate yourself. This is general high school stuff.



Haven't met Leakey personally, but I have met a lot of anthropologists and archaeologists (my wife is one, for example) and have done more than my fair share of research, both on evolution and on the Bible. The Bible pales in comparison in every way.

I don't know that I'd recommend Darwin to a beginner, especially one looking to poke holes in evolution, simply because Darwinism has been surpassed many times over. Darwin had the right idea, descent with modification, but there are so many things that Darwin had no way of knowing, like genetics for example, that Darwin really isn't a good starting place anymore.

There are better books which are geared toward beginners and are very simplistic in their explanations. I recommend Tim Berra's Evolution and the Myth of Creationism as a good starting place. Not only does it show the strength of evolution, but the utter lies and misrepresentations that creationists try to use.

For someone like Sofia, who has obviously never held a biology book and only listens to ICR, it should be an eye-opening experience, should she actually read the book.



Only if that little knowledge doesn't become more knowledge through reading and research. It's more a matter of ignorance being a dangerous thing, and theists are grossly ignorant on a great many things, from science to their own belief systems.