The Fine-Tuning Argument: A Ball at the base of a Mountain

[Peter]

I wonder if fish have a soul??

[Peter]

Well, you did say you were a theist in another post. And then later that "When a theist says that they're not an animal they are just saying that they aren't soulless. Since souls are as indetectable as gods the statement is totally useless."

I think I will just go with the clarification for now, Pete, and see what transpires from there.

Ah, word games.
Silly me.

[The Theist]

Incorrect.

I ask because plants also respire, though I didn't see them in your post. You only mentioned animals and "man". Do plants also have souls, according to you?

No. Blood is the soul, or the soul is in the blood. Plants don't have souls, according to the Bible.

What you should have asked, though, is does Jehovah God?

[el ايمان]

I wonder if fish have a soul??

Fish can also do respiration, so surely they must? Fish, animals, plants, bacteria -- the whole lot must have souls because they respire!

[The Theist]

I wonder if fish have a soul??

Yes. Leviticus 11:10: "And everything in the seas and the torrents that has no fins and scales, out of every swarming creature of the waters and out of every living soul that is in the waters, they are a loathsome thing for you."

[el ايمان]

No. Blood is the soul, or the soul is in the blood. Plants don't have souls, according to the Bible.

You quite clearly said that respiration was a condition for having a soul. Where does blood come in? Don't go changing your story on me now.

Do amoebae have souls? They're animals but they don't have blood. What about Cnidarians? They don't have blood either.

[truthreality]

Your point is against all the theories of science.

No.

To suggest that evolution might be wrong is to say that evidence does not matter in reaching our conclusions.

I am not questioning evidence as a viable source for coming to conclusions. The evidence for evolution depends to large extent on fossils. I am not questioning whether or not fossils are a viable form of evidence even. I am stating the exact opposite. I am questioning whether the evidence we have in terms of fossils is sufficient to prove humans evolved from primates.

When you claim that the speed of light may have varied in the past, that is challenging Einstein's theories.

It is impossible for me to claim such a thing because I never even referred to the speed of light. We have a very accurate metre to measure the speed of light in the present. For example, two scientists Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment in which they observed any change in the speed of light in relation to the earth's change in direction relative to the sun. They were unable to find any change in the speed of light. We are able to observe such changes here and now.

Your theory that we should just accept everything in science as fact without challenging it is unscientific. In order to progress in science it is important we are critical of theories.

Here are some scientists who have differing opinions then Einstein when it comes to whether or not the speed of light has stayed constant since the beginning of time. There theories are not ridiculous.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1005114024.htm

http://assa.saao.ac.za/features/cosm...les/speed.html

When you claim that the decay rates of radioactive elements used to establish the age of the Earth may have changed, you are contradicting the framers of quantum theory, including Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others.

It is impossible for me to claim such a thing because I never even referred to the radioactive elements used to establish the earth. Anyways radioactive dating is a very simple process. We measure the number of atoms when a rock is formed and then the number in the rock now and calculate the age using the decay constant. It's a very simple process. It's much simpler then determining whether or not humans evolved from primates.

Note that Oppenheimer was pretty much an engineer, not a theoretician.

There are times when it is good to be technical and there are other times when you should let things go. Oppenheimer was not pretty much an engineer. He was a theoretical physicist. He taught theory at Berkeley. He created and contributed to theories.

The age of the universe, which is ~14 billion years, is established by the redshift of the light from the most distant galaxies. The age of the Earth is established by radiometric dating techniques based on the statistical workings of quantum mechanics.

Thanks for the science lecture but I am not questioning the age of the universe.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any scientist who does not believe that humans evolved from primates is a charlatan. Humans are primates. It is beyond controversy that we evolved from other primates. We share large percentages of our DNA with the other Great Apes.

You didn't answer my question. Explain to me how specifically the evidence (fossils and such) we have prove that humans evolved from primates.

[truthreality]

Your bait and switch does not go unnoticed. Planet Earth does not have physiological features. This is why I recommended that you go buy a biology textbook.

Not necessary. I know that physiologically we are similar to animals. That's not my point. My point is in how we define humans. There are more to humans then physiological characteristics.

Yes. This is another case where picking up a book would do you good. Psychology is a field of applied biology; one can physically alter the body (of both humans and our fellow animals) to produce measured psychological responses. My favorite example is the obese mouse and the intricacies of brain alteration to the perception of hunger.

Psychology is more then the study of applied biology. What differentiates psychology from biology and neuroscience is that it is primarily concerned with the mind rather then the brain.

Sadly for you, it is not a sufficient response. I requested evidence of "variables and factors not dealt with biologically that defines humans".

The variables and factors I am referring to are philosophical and spiritual. There is no point explaining these variables and factors to you, however, unless you have some sort of agreement with them. Otherwise the debate never gets anyway. A better way of rephrasing my statement is that in theory there are variables and factors not dealt with biologically that define humans.

[el ايمان]

Not necessary. I know that physiologically we are similar to animals. That's not my point. My point is in how we define humans. There are more to humans then physiological characteristics.

Incorrect. The anatomy and physiology of humans defines what a human is. It's how we differentiate animals into different taxonomic categories.

Psychology is more then the study of applied biology. What differentiates psychology from biology and neuroscience is that it is primarily concerned with the mind rather then the brain.

I know that I keep recommending that you go out and buy textbooks, but it's because you keep making statements like these. The study of modern and factual psychology is rooted in the structure and function of the body. We have sensation and perception because of our physiology. We have emotions because our bodies react to stimuli. We handle complex situations in complex ways because of an interaction of more simple psychological factors. No reason has been presented (on this thread, at least) to assume that "the mind" is something that transcends the body.

The variables and factors I am referring to are philosophical and spiritual. There is no point explaining these variables and factors to you, however, unless you have some sort of agreement with them. Otherwise the debate never gets anyway. A better way of rephrasing my statement is that in theory there are variables and factors not dealt with biologically that define humans.

A better way of rephrasing your statements is, "I have a crock of bull to sell you".

[Senor Hoint]

I am not questioning evidence as a viable source for coming to conclusions. The evidence for evolution depends to large extent on fossils. I am not questioning whether or not fossils are a viable form of evidence even. I am stating the exact opposite. I am questioning whether the evidence we have in terms of fossils is sufficient to prove humans evolved from primates.

The fossil evidence we have is absolutely sufficient to presume that we evolved from primates. If it weren't the DNA evidence further supports this conclusion.

It is impossible for me to claim such a thing because I never even referred to the speed of light. We have a very accurate metre to measure the speed of light in the present. For example, two scientists Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment in which they observed any change in the speed of light in relation to the earth's change in direction relative to the sun. They were unable to find any change in the speed of light. We are able to observe such changes here and now.

Wrong. We are unable to observe changes in the speed of light in a vacuum because there are no such changes. The Michelson-Morley experiment in fact disproved the idea that light's speed could be relative. This invariable c (the speed of light in a vacuum, as the speed of propagation through different mediums is different) is the cornerstone of special relativity and indirectly of general relativity.

Your theory that we should just accept everything in science as fact without challenging it is unscientific. In order to progress in science it is important we are critical of theories.

I am not proposing we accept established theories without question. I am proposing that we follow the evidence to its logical conclusions. The evidence we have available leads to the mainstream theories in science, such as the idea that the universe is 14 billion years old, that the Earth is 4 billion, and that humans evolved from primates. The evidence is 100% in support of these conclusions. Any arguments against these conclusions are not taking the evidence properly into account.

Here are some scientists who have differing opinions then Einstein when it comes to whether or not the speed of light has stayed constant since the beginning of time. There theories are not ridiculous.

You should re-read those two articles and ask yourself if what they are proposing would support young-earth creationism. I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't. The second article even says right at the top that photons with varying speeds at the quantum level would not violate the principles of relativity.

There are times when it is good to be technical and there are other times when you should let things go. Oppenheimer was not pretty much an engineer. He was a theoretical physicist. He taught theory at Berkeley. He created and contributed to theories.

True, I was wrong.

It is impossible for me to claim such a thing because I never even referred to the radioactive elements used to establish the earth. Anyways radioactive dating is a very simple process. We measure the number of atoms when a rock is formed and then the number in the rock now and calculate the age using the decay constant. It's a very simple process. It's much simpler then determining whether or not humans evolved from primates.

Thanks for the science lecture but I am not questioning the age of the universe.

So, when you claim that

Evolutionists who say that humans took 14 billions to arise are using inductive processes based on shady ground.

You aren't questioning the age of the universe and (by extension) the age of the Earth? What exactly do you mean by this sentence then?

You didn't answer my question. Explain to me how specifically the evidence (fossils and such) we have prove that humans evolved from primates.

A summary from the Wikipedia page on human evolution: The evidence for human evolution is found in many fields of natural science. Much of this evidence is in the fossil record, although genetics is now playing an ever-increasing and complementary role. The studies of ontogeny, phylogeny and especially evolutionary developmental biology of both vertebrates and invertebrates offer considerable insight into the evolution of all life, including how humans evolved. The specific study of the origin and life of humans is anthropology, with paleoanthropology of particular interest.[28]
In hominids, the fossil record shows the progressive straightening of the spine, the increase in brain volume, changes in facial features towards being more gracile, and a reduction in the muscles of mastication with a concomitant change in dentition.
The tail becomes incorporated into the pelvis as the sacrum in higher primates. All vertebrates have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of four weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.[29] Humans have a non-functional third eyelid, the plica semilunaris. Humans also have external ear muscles,[30] which animals use to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have remnants of such muscles, but they are now feeble and now are capable only of slightly wiggling the ear.[31]
The plantaris muscle also serves as evidence of human evolution. The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet, for example apes, who can use their feet as well as their hands for gripping. Humans have a corresponding muscle, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it.[32] Other evidence includes Jacobson's organ, which is a part of animal anatomy, and which could figure in the sexual prehistory of humans. This organ, located in the nasal passage, detects pheromones (the chemical that triggers sexual desire, alarm, or information about food trails). This organ allows some animals to track others for sex and to warn of potential dangers. Humans are born with the Jacobson’s organ, but in early development its abilities dwindle to a point that it is useless.[33] In some cases, structures once identified as vestigial simply had an unrecognized function.[34] Wisdom teeth serve as evidence of evolution; human ancestors ate a lot of plants, and they needed to eat them quickly enough that they could eat a sufficient amount in one day to get the necessary nutrition. For this reason they had an extra set of molars to make the larger mouth more productive. This was particularly essential as the body lacked the ability to sufficiently digest cellulose. As evolution made its selections, human dietary patterns changed, the jaw became smaller, and the third molar was not as necessary.[35]

We also share large percentages of our DNA with our immediate relations the Great Apes.

It is not difficult to research the evidence for human evolution and for evolution in general. Perhaps you should purchase a biology textbook after all.

The entire taxonomic classification of animals is based on the family ties which link all species. Those species which are more closely related are more closely related in evolutionary time. How closely related two species are is defined by how recently their most recent common ancestor lived. All primates including humans have a most recent common ancestor about 65 million years ago.

[truthreality]

Incorrect. The anatomy and physiology of humans defines what a human is. It's how we differentiate animals into different taxonomic categories.

Well the ego also defines what a humans is. The ego is not an aspect of anatomy or physiology. The ego is also an aspect that separates us from animal. The ego is accepted in modern psychology as a legitimate concept. The ego has tremendous impact on how humans create their identity.

I know that I keep recommending that you go out and buy textbooks, but it's because you keep making statements like these. The study of modern and factual psychology is rooted in the structure and function of the body. We have sensation and perception because of our physiology. We have emotions because our bodies react to stimuli. We handle complex situations in complex ways because of an interaction of more simple psychological factors. No reason has been presented (on this thread, at least) to assume that "the mind" is something that transcends the body.

New research with tremendous evidence has shown that our thoughts have a significant more impact on our emotions and our perception more then physiological aspects and our relation to our environment. The core belief behind this theory is that thoughts are what cause our sensations, perceptions and emotions. Thoughts have an impact on chemicals within our brain. Thoughts are not result of biological factors but rather the mind. It's called cognitive behaviorism. Psychology is now rooted in the latter not simply the study of our physiology. Most modern psychologist now engage in cognitive behavioral therapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy deals strictly with the mind, not physiology. Cognitive behavioral therapy has shown to have the strongest impact on patients. How do we analyze cognitive behavior within animals? How do we analyze thoughts in animals? Do animals have thoughts.

Perhaps you should read Feeling Good by David Burns

A better way of rephrasing your statements is, "I have a crock of bull to sell you".

My beliefs are not bull and I am not selling you anything. I am merely stating that from my point of view we have factors, such as spiritual factors that separate us from animals. I have reasons to believe what I believe. There is also logic and reasoning as to why I hold such beliefs. Experience also a reason I hold these beliefs.

Philosophy and spirituality are human experiences and thought processes explored by both theists and non theists.

[Jack]

Well the ego also defines what a humans is. The ego is not an aspect of anatomy or physiology.

As a product of the brain the ego is tied to our physiology. Brain damaged people suffer many changes to their personalities including their egos.

Thoughts are not result of biological factors but rather the mind.

The mind is a term that's poorly understood and defined. It usually is used to refer to the collective output of brain activity. It's source is the brain, just like emotions. As confirmation of this I challenge you to provide a definitive and scientifically accepted definition of mind which doesn't include the brain.