RonD1120 62
RonD1120 62
QuoteQuoteQuoteThanks, for the post, Speedracer.
I, like most christians, accept evolution.
What about the Bombardier Beetle?
http://www.wild-facts.com/tag/bombardier-beetle-facts/
It has evolved a complex defensive mechanism.
What do you find relevant about it?
If the exhaust ports were developed first there would not have been an evolutionary need for them. If the gas process evolved first the beetle would have blown itself out of existence.
Therefore, it is logical to think that the Bombardier Beetle was created with both the gas process and the exhaust ports simultaneously.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
RonD1120 62
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks, for the post, Speedracer.
I, like most christians, accept evolution.
What about the Bombardier Beetle?
http://www.wild-facts.com/tag/bombardier-beetle-facts/
What about the Bombardier Beetle?
It's a very nice example of evolution, that's what.
No, it is a confusing example of evolution.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks, for the post, Speedracer.
I, like most christians, accept evolution.
What about the Bombardier Beetle?
http://www.wild-facts.com/tag/bombardier-beetle-facts/
What about the Bombardier Beetle?
It's a very nice example of evolution, that's what.
No, it is a confusing example of evolution.
It's only confusing to those who wish to be confused and/or are easily confused.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
RonD1120 62
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks, for the post, Speedracer.
I, like most christians, accept evolution.
What about the Bombardier Beetle?
http://www.wild-facts.com/tag/bombardier-beetle-facts/
What about the Bombardier Beetle?
I refer you to my post #1155 above.
It's a very nice example of evolution, that's what.
No, it is a confusing example of evolution.
It's only confusing to those who wish to be confused and/or are easily confused.
ETA my response, which somehow got lost in the reply posting.
I refer you to my post #1155 above.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
beowulf 1
It's amazing how much of your belief is based on assumptions layered upon themselves.
Peer reviewed?? Really?! It's all opinion based on interpretation of the Bible. There is no way to define who's interpretation is correct since it's all subjective to each person's opinion.
It's nothing but fantasy which you appear to try to give it legitimacy by trying to make it sound like science when you don't seem to be able to grasp what the scientific method is.
QuoteIn the spirit of full disclosure, this model was developed by Charles Solomon and peer review, along with Dr. Bill Wilson, has not been totally favorable.
Peer reviewed?? Really?! It's all opinion based on interpretation of the Bible. There is no way to define who's interpretation is correct since it's all subjective to each person's opinion.
It's nothing but fantasy which you appear to try to give it legitimacy by trying to make it sound like science when you don't seem to be able to grasp what the scientific method is.
RonD1120 62
QuoteIt's amazing how much of your belief is based on assumptions layered upon themselves.
QuoteIn the spirit of full disclosure, this model was developed by Charles Solomon and peer review, along with Dr. Bill Wilson, has not been totally favorable.
Peer reviewed?? Really?! It's all opinion based on interpretation of the Bible. There is no way to define who's interpretation is correct since it's all subjective to each person's opinion.
It's nothing but fantasy which you appear to try to give it legitimacy by trying to make it sound like science when you don't seem to be able to grasp what the scientific method is.
My dear beowulf, you totally missed the point.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
beowulf 1
QuoteQuoteIt's amazing how much of your belief is based on assumptions layered upon themselves.
QuoteIn the spirit of full disclosure, this model was developed by Charles Solomon and peer review, along with Dr. Bill Wilson, has not been totally favorable.
Peer reviewed?? Really?! It's all opinion based on interpretation of the Bible. There is no way to define who's interpretation is correct since it's all subjective to each person's opinion.
It's nothing but fantasy which you appear to try to give it legitimacy by trying to make it sound like science when you don't seem to be able to grasp what the scientific method is.
My dear beowulf, you totally missed the point.
All of your assumptions invalidate your point.
beowulf 1
The bottom line is the more assumptions you make the less likely your conclusions are correct. Considering the number of assumptions you make to support your beliefs, they are not remotely likely to be real or true.
QuoteHowever, he does acknowledge that a measurable weight loss occurs at the moment of death. Is that the soul leaving? Well maybe but science cannot determine that answer, yet.
Actually, science has determined that this does not occur. But who gives a shit right? Sounds cool so let's take it as evidence of the soul.
SkyDekker 1,465
I'm not fat, I just have a big soul.
Shotgun 1
QuoteQuoteI don't think I'll email or call them all right now to ask them, but if a situation arises where it seems like a good conversation to start, I'll do that.
I think I generally don't try to start science discussions with people who don't seem interested in science, but I guess the topic of evolution is somewhat philosophical as well.
Where the hell is the topic of evolution philosophical ?
I think I generally don't try to start science discussions with people who don't seem interested in science, but I guess the topic of evolution is somewhat philosophical as well. I figured I might get in trouble for saying that.
And I agree that the question of whether or not evolution happens is not a philosophical question. But when we consider the entire topic of evolution (history, implications, etc.), I do believe there are some elements that are open to philosophical discussion.
A couple of links that might touch on what I'm talking about:
http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/
jakee 1,594
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks, for the post, Speedracer.
I, like most christians, accept evolution.
What about the Bombardier Beetle?
http://www.wild-facts.com/tag/bombardier-beetle-facts/
It has evolved a complex defensive mechanism.
What do you find relevant about it?
If the exhaust ports were developed first there would not have been an evolutionary need for them. If the gas process evolved first the beetle would have blown itself out of existence.
Therefore, it is logical to think that the Bombardier Beetle was created with both the gas process and the exhaust ports simultaneously.
Yes. Because, obviously, it is that simple
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
billvon 3,107
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>If the exhaust ports were developed first there would not have been an evolutionary need for them.
>If the gas process evolved first the beetle would have blown itself out of existence.
All ground beetles can expel noxious gas through their glands. Some ground beetles produce hydrogen peroxide which gives the gas a little more oomph. The bombardier beetle just has a slightly more evolved version.
>If the gas process evolved first the beetle would have blown itself out of existence.
All ground beetles can expel noxious gas through their glands. Some ground beetles produce hydrogen peroxide which gives the gas a little more oomph. The bombardier beetle just has a slightly more evolved version.
winsor 236
The concept of spirit and soul is debated without conclusion.
I'm white. Ain't got no soul. Rhythm neither.
oldwomanc6 60
QuoteThe concept of spirit and soul is debated without conclusion.
I'm white. Ain't got no soul. Rhythm neither.
Can you jump?
lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9
winsor 236
QuoteQuoteThe concept of spirit and soul is debated without conclusion.
I'm white. Ain't got no soul. Rhythm neither.
Can you jump?
Oddly enough, yes.
RonD1120 62
Quote>If the exhaust ports were developed first there would not have been an evolutionary need for them.
>If the gas process evolved first the beetle would have blown itself out of existence.
All ground beetles can expel noxious gas through their glands. Some ground beetles produce hydrogen peroxide which gives the gas a little more oomph. The bombardier beetle just has a slightly more evolved version.
OK, but, which came first the gas or the exhaust ports?
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
billvon 3,107
>OK, but, which came first the gas or the exhaust ports?
Almost certainly the gas. Other similar animals have quinones (stuff that's in the gas) that just sits on their shells and makes them taste bad to predators.
Almost certainly the gas. Other similar animals have quinones (stuff that's in the gas) that just sits on their shells and makes them taste bad to predators.
RonD1120 62
QuoteThe concept of spirit and soul is debated without conclusion.
I'm white. Ain't got no soul. Rhythm neither.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
Coreece 190
QuoteQuoteThanks, for the post, Speedracer.
I, like most christians, accept evolution.
Getting back to the original post, I'm not convinced that most Christians accept evolution, though I know that a lot of them do.
It's not so much about not accepting evolution inasmuch as we're not actually against it...as one once said, "I like your science, I do not like your scientists."
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
beowulf 1
QuoteQuoteQuoteThanks, for the post, Speedracer.
I, like most christians, accept evolution.
Getting back to the original post, I'm not convinced that most Christians accept evolution, though I know that a lot of them do.
It's not so much about not accepting evolution inasmuch as we're not actually against it...as one once said, "I like your science, I do not like your scientists."
I don't think that is true of most Christians that believe in Creationism. All that I have come across have been ignorant of the science and were not interested in learning.
I think we're not on the same page, as my concept of what is meant by "spirit" goes well beyond "motivator". Presumably the "spirit" is what survives into the "afterlife", and I doubt that many people would relish an afterlife that is inhabited by their "motivation" without any sense of self-awareness, memories, etc. I kind of assumed that what is supposed to survive (the "spirit" or "soul") would be a self-aware entity, essentially the entire personality of the individual. Talking to a "spirit" would be indistinguishable from talking to the person, right? How can you have a conversation with "motivation"?
It seems to me to be a real conundrum, if the "spirit" (in the sense that I imagine it, which is the complete personality, memories, hopes, desires of the individual) is supposed to be non-physical, yet it is subject to profound alteration by physical causes such as dopamine/serotonin/whatever levels in the brain. Similarly, it is well known that physical damage to certain regions of the brain can profoundly affect impulse control, mood, memory, etc. How can physical damage to the pre-frontal cortex change something as fundamental to the "spirit" as the ability to weigh consequences of actions and choose to avoid evil actions? I had an uncle who had a malignant brain tumor removed; before the surgery he was always calm, and exceptionally considerate of everyone, but afterwards he was impulsive, abrasive, angry, a prick in a lot of ways. Completely a different person. How could removing a physical piece of someone's brain change who they are so much, if the "spirit" is not also physical?
It seems to me that if the "spirit" was non-physical and just used the physical body as a device, physical disease or damage might impair functionality (such as making you blind, like removing the lens from a camera), but it wouldn't be able to change the essence of who you are. Do you have a resolution to this problem?
Cheers,
Don
The concept of spirit and soul is debated without conclusion. My initial interest was based on Hebrews 4:12:
"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
I choose the model for explanation and understanding that states that we are spirit we have a soul and we live in a body. The definition, by this model, of the soul is mind, emotions and will.
In the spirit of full disclosure, this model was developed by Charles Solomon and peer review, along with Dr. Bill Wilson, has not been totally favorable.
I presented the model to Dr. Steve Groff, a skydiving retired psychiatrist, and he did not embrace the model either. However, he does acknowledge that a measurable weight loss occurs at the moment of death. Is that the soul leaving? Well maybe but science cannot determine that answer, yet.
So, I had to make a decision for my understanding of soul and spirit and I stuck with Solomon's model because it made since to me and I could easily explain it to my addicted clients. It served as a good foundational starting point for those client's seeking a Christian path to recovery.
If the soul exists for eternity, and I believe it does, what do we take with it when we die? Scripture indicates there is no sorrow in heaven with Christ. To me that means we will have no thought of our earthly existence. For good memories are connected with bad memories.
My present thinking is along the lines that we go into heaven with a clean slate. We are now spiritual entities only, living in a spiritual world and thought produces travel. The time space continuum is one multidimensional eternal being.
Whatever it is, I am looking forward to it.
In the meantime we live in a physical world with a spiritual influence. We make decisions based on how we feel about what we perceive. If our physical perceptions are altered we change our mental processes and thus our personalities change.
When a person's personality changes are the result of physical trauma e.g., brain surgery, the homeostasis is radically altered. Medication and therapy are the only means I know of to deal with the change.
Without psychiatric intervention, the patient lives in a world that requires everyone he interacts with to make adjustments. That is not very easy in the long term.
Furthermore, the use of pharmacology and therapy is complicated by the fact that the patient must voluntarily choose that treatment.
These are not easy questions to answer and at best can only be discussed in theory and applied sporadically. And then, what works for one patient may not work for another. Human behavior is just not very scientific.