[_ Old Earth _] Scientfic Evidence for the Soul?

[Featherbop]

Scientific evidence for the soul? None...unless one accepts that if the human soul or any such equivalent exists...it is entirely constructed of matter.

If one believes that the soul does contain non-material elements, then the following definition is quite useful:
-----------------------------------------
Soul: The entirety of a human being
-----------------------------------------

This way, no element is left out, but the definition is unspecific, so a concession that one does not know or understand all the elements of the soul is neccesary.

 

[ikester7579]

Scientific evidence for the soul? None...unless one accepts that if the human soul or any such equivalent exists...it is entirely constructed of matter.

If one believes that the soul does contain non-material elements, then the following definition is quite useful:
-----------------------------------------
Soul: The entirety of a human being
-----------------------------------------

This way, no element is left out, but the definition is unspecific, so a concession that one does not know or understand all the elements of the soul is neccesary.

Unless you can explain away the weight loss for every time the test was run. Then what makes the body lose weight, as being the soul. Would be a good conclusion. Unless you care to show physical evidence as to why this happened everytime.

 

[maranatha_man]

There's also such a thing as loss of fluids upon death (fluids = weight). There's never been one shred of any evidence whatsoever supporting differences in corpse weight being attributable to disappearance of an undefinable ghostey-entity, ("soul" spirit" whatever) and the entire thing is bad non-science based on mis-interpreted or mis-presented data, and I'm not getting into any link wars but it's also possible to GAIN weight upon death (fluid absorption).

 

[ikester7579]

There's also such a thing as loss of fluids upon death (fluids = weight). There's never been one shred of any evidence whatsoever supporting differences in corpse weight being attributable to disappearance of an undefinable ghostey-entity, ("soul" spirit" whatever) and the entire thing is bad non-science based on mis-interpreted or mis-presented data, and I'm not getting into any link wars but it's also possible to GAIN weight upon death (fluid absorption).

You make your claims, but where is your evidence? I have shown mine, now it's up to you to debunk it with evidence instead of mere guesses.

I show a test that is repeatable. You show only words and suggestions of trying to explain it away. Is this your best debunk?

Even the athiest favorite site (snopes) agrees with evidence. If you can debunk this so easily, lets see you convince them to change their view from true to false on this subject. Your words may sound convincing here, but when your snopes buddies ask for actual testing, and repeatable testing, what will you provide? More words?

 

[maranatha_man]

Question #1 – The last and only tests to supposedly “prove†and demonstrate this were conducted in 1907 & 1911??!! All your “evidence†cites ONLY this one flimsy antique source??? You’ve gotta do better than that.

From the snopes site (you claim this is an “agreement†with the data?? Are you serious??):

†What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiousity, but nothing more.

His experimental “degrees of freedom†(sampling size) was too small and the methodology was suspect …not too mention how long ago this “experiment†was conducted.

Not too compelling just yet – but I was’nt aware that “snopes†is a favorite atheist site. Can YOU support this with evidence?

Do you have anything more up-to-date and valid from an experimental standpoint???

quote by Ikester7579
Let's hear these countless explanations.

1) What makes a person lighter when they die?

Ever heard of fluid (gastrointestinal et al) or blood loss prior to death?? Requesting that a person “back this idea up with evidence" is laughable.

quote by Ikester7579
2) What keeps that weight loss "exactly" the same (in loss) regardless of size or weight of the human (which is said to have a soul)?

Answer in a nutshell? – bad experimentation, and/or faked results Please cite more recent sources (plural!) to support or demonstrate this, ok??

quote by Ikester7579
I show a test that is repeatable. You show only words and suggestions of trying to explain it away. Is this your best debunk?

Nonsense! If that is the case, give some sources showing the number of times it has been repeated by independent sources, yielding the same results, hopefully more recent than "1907" Ok?? I’d like to see that.

 

[ikester7579]

Question #1 – The last and only tests to supposedly “prove†and demonstrate this were conducted in 1907 & 1911??!! All your “evidence†cites ONLY this one flimsy antique source??? You’ve gotta do better than that.

Antique? And when did Darwin come up with his idea for your favorite theory?
Over 50 years earlier sound correct?

His experimental “degrees of freedom†(sampling size) was too small and the methodology was suspect …not too mention how long ago this “experiment†was conducted.

Darwin's ideas are still much older regardless of how often you will try and push the point. And the people whose books gave him the idea are much older than that.

Not too compelling just yet – but I was’nt aware that “snopes†is a favorite atheist site. Can YOU support this with evidence?

Well when you have it quoted to you almost as much as talk origins, what would you think?

Ever heard of fluid (gastrointestinal et al) or blood loss prior to death?? Requesting that a person “back this idea up with evidence" is laughable.

I guess you don't read much of what you try and debunk. The subject was set on a table to make sure all fluids expelled upon death were not lost. And they allowed for fluid loss due to sweating as well. Anything else?

Answer in a nutshell? – bad experimentation, and/or faked results Please cite more recent sources (plural!) to support or demonstrate this, ok??

Most laughable. Still waiting for you to e-mail snopes and discuss your concerns about this. Maybe we can start another thread so your results can be monitored. Or maybe we can invite them here, and you and them can hash out whether they will change it

But as usual, most evolutionists only make claims to make their belief look like fact. Never put into action what they preach. The burden is upon you to debunk the evidence at it's source.

Nonsense! If that is the case, give some sources showing the number of times it has been repeated by independent sources, yielding the same results, hopefully more recent than "1907" Ok?? I’d like to see that.

And how many times was the Miller experiment done (the amino acid experiment)? How many independent sources, yielding the same results were done? Only one? But yet it still accepted? My my, I see bias.

And as I have said above. No matter how antique you try and make it sound. Darwin's idea is much older. And how many times did you make this point? 3 times? You most be desperate to debunk this evidence.

 

[Quath]

And how many times was the Miller experiment done (the amino acid experiment)? How many independent sources, yielding the same results were done? Only one? But yet it still accepted? My my, I see bias.

And as I have said above. No matter how antique you try and make it sound. Darwin's idea is much older. And how many times did you make this point? 3 times? You most be desperate to debunk this evidence.

No one questions the results of Miller's experiments. Not even young Earth Creationists because it is easy to do. Instead they question whether the experiment applies to Earth's early atmosphere.

There are pros and cons to this argument, however, the 1969 meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. So even if the Miller experiment didn't reflect Earth's atmosphere, we can see that amino acids are produced naturally and could also have come from space.

Quath

 

[ikester7579]

And how many times was the Miller experiment done (the amino acid experiment)? How many independent sources, yielding the same results were done? Only one? But yet it still accepted? My my, I see bias.

And as I have said above. No matter how antique you try and make it sound. Darwin's idea is much older. And how many times did you make this point? 3 times? You most be desperate to debunk this evidence.

No one questions the results of Miller's experiments. Not even young Earth Creationists because it is easy to do. Instead they question whether the experiment applies to Earth's early atmosphere.

There are pros and cons to this argument, however, the 1969 meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. So even if the Miller experiment didn't reflect Earth's atmosphere, we can see that amino acids are produced naturally and could also have come from space.

Quath

Like with everything else evolutionists use as evidence. Leaving out facts about the test to make it look good on paper is the norm.

1) How many kinds of amino acids were made in that test, compared to how many that are currently known?

2) Where, and how did the others form that life currently uses?

3) Why did Miller filter off all the toxic chemicals?
a) Tar (35%)
b) Carboxylic acid (13%)

Because life cannot survive, or even start in such a toxic soup. Nature has no way of filtering such toxic chemicals as soon as the desired ones were created.

4) A second discharge of the same energy required to create the amino acids, will destroy what was just created. So did the amino acids have the ability to hide from future discharges until life was able to leave the water?

Remember, lightening strikes have the ability to charge the water up to a mile from the center of the strike. Which would destroy any amino acids bonds that were formed from the strike earlier. One strike creates, the next strike destroys.

5) This is also why Miller made his experiment only apply a electrical discharge only once to the material he used to conduct the test. He knew what a second discharge would do to the results that were just obtained.

So in other words, Miller used several cheats to make his experiment work. And evolutionist use his experiment as evidence leaving these facts out hoping no one will bring them up.

With each unreal world cheat Miller had to use, made the odds and variables to achieve the same results, in a real world situation. More and more unachievable. And the odds to big to even imagine. For as long as it would have taken for a amino acid to form the first life, would have been how long a electrical discharge could not strike within a mile of that forming life. And even after the life was formed. It could still fall prey to what created it. Making the odds even larger, and more unacheivable.

 

[maranatha_man]

Question #1 – The last and only tests to supposedly “prove†and demonstrate this were conducted in 1907 & 1911??!! All your “evidence†cites ONLY this one flimsy antique source??? You’ve gotta do better than that.

Antique? And when did Darwin come up with his idea for your favorite theory?
Over 50 years earlier sound correct?

I have never made any claim of Darwin having invented "my favorite theory" :roll: that is irrelevent nonsense, and is also an apples vs. oranges comparison. Once again why CAN'T any more recent work in this area be cited???

quote: ikester7579"His experimental “degrees of freedom†(sampling size) was too small and the methodology was suspect …not too mention how long ago this “experiment†was conducted."

Darwin's ideas are still much older regardless of how often you will try and push the point. And the people whose books gave him the idea are much older than that.

Once again this is just irrelevent apples and oranges nonsense . Darwin never did any "research" into the areas of "soul weight" or loss of weight at death, covered under the topic of this thread. One more time: why CAN'T any more recent work in this area be cited???

quote: ikester7579"Not too compelling just yet – but I was’nt aware that “snopes†is a favorite atheist site. Can YOU support this with evidence?
Well when you have it quoted to you almost as much as talk origins, what would you think?

uh...I would just view it as an often-quoted source, & possible consensus agreement that it's reliable information. :roll: and btw - why(?) in the world do you make the faulty claim that Snopes "agrees" with the information, in light of the quote I copied from the very same article???? <LOL!>

quote: ikester7579"Ever heard of fluid (gastrointestinal et al) or blood loss prior to death?? Requesting that a person “back this idea up with evidence" is laughable."

I guess you don't read much of what you try and debunk. The subject was set on a table to make sure all fluids expelled upon death were not lost. And they allowed for fluid loss due to sweating as well. Anything else?

Very good! Some specifics for a change!! :D ...NOW:How many times has this been repeated and verified using post-1907-1911 conditions and procedures and why do you seem unable to produce any sources verifying this???

quote: ikester7579
"Answer in a nutshell? – bad experimentation, and/or faked results Please cite more recent sources (plural!) to support or demonstrate this, ok??

Most laughable. Still waiting for you to e-mail snopes and discuss your concerns about this. Maybe we can start another thread so your results can be monitored. Or maybe we can invite them here, and you and them can hash out whether they will change it

Say what?? I have no idea what you are talking about. Once again from the very Snopes.com article that you cited:
"What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiousity, but nothing more.

....so...what is your point again??? :-?

quote: ikester7579
But as usual, most evolutionists only make claims to make their belief look like fact. Never put into action what they preach. The burden is upon you to debunk the evidence at it's source.

I guess when all else fails, just bang out a bunch of empty rhetoric.
I'm assuming the "source" in question to be shaky experimentation done in the first 10 or so years of the 20th century. How am I supposed to "debunk this evidence at it's source"(??) and your own version of burden-of-proof, it seems.

Sorry, but R U on drugz!!?? :o

quote: ikester7579
"Nonsense! If that is the case, give some sources showing the number of times it has been repeated by independent sources, yielding the same results, hopefully more recent than "1907" Ok?? I’d like to see that."
And how many times was the Miller experiment done (the amino acid experiment)? How many independent sources, yielding the same results were done? Only one? But yet it still accepted? My my, I see bias.

And as I have said above. No matter how antique you try and make it sound. Darwin's idea is much older. And how many times did you make this point? 3 times? You most be desperate to debunk this evidence.

Wow! That's a nice dodge. Whine about the Miller experiment (off topic)
...and as far as the apples vs oranges bit about Darwin, just see my previous responses :wink:

 

[maranatha_man]

btw - Ikester -GOOD NEWS!! - I really think I see what your problem is with trying to pass this flimsy stuff off as "evidence"!! :D

There's this really neat
website that explains about how you are using circular reasoning to support something that you really just want to be true, but does'nt line up with real truth, and how you can get REALLY,REALLY addicted to this, like <cough> trolling around message boards, 'til you have to resort to "Fallback groups" (??) and could really need to spend way too much time trying to justify what you believe, and lying to call it "evidence" and "proof", or just sitting at your keyboard, pounding out line after line of rambling gibberish, and then claiming it "prooves" what others need to believe about "God and His word etc etc,...

You really oughtta check it out!! :bday:

 

[ikester7579]

btw - Ikester -GOOD NEWS!! - I really think I see what your problem is with trying to pass this flimsy stuff off as "evidence"!! :D

There's this really neat
website that explains about how you are using circular reasoning to support something that you really just want to be true, but does'nt line up with real truth, and how you can get REALLY,REALLY addicted to this, like <cough> trolling around message boards, 'til you have to resort to "Fallback groups" (??) and could really need to spend way too much time trying to justify what you believe, and lying to call it "evidence" and "proof", or just sitting at your keyboard, pounding out line after line of rambling gibberish, and then claiming it "prooves" what others need to believe about "God and His word etc etc,...

You really oughtta check it out!! :bday:

Since you find it intersting, maybe it would be better for you to read. You seem to like what I wrote since you are suggesting it. By the way, I'm not at a atheist forum argueing against what they believe. And where are you at argueing what you believe? But then again you are good at doing something then blaming it on someone else.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I'm still waiting for someone to give some evidence that the soul exists.

I know that this is going to sound rude, but it sounds to me as if you are asking "What is the difference between a dead person and a live one."

 

[maranatha_man]

...getting close......

Back on topic:

"120 Souls were lost in the sinking of the Hesperus"
"350 Souls were present at this years' company banquet"
"At last count 170 souls were in attendence at Bill & Margie's wedding reception"

"Soul" means nothing more than one's own personal identity, if you will. His or her existence as an individual. Anything more seems a needless excursion into primitive animism or spiritism. :wink:

 

[Slevin]

Maybe these links will help you.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

http://www.homestead.com/WinterSteel/Soul.html

http://216.247.205.102/weighsoul.html

They are all about the same experiment. This experiment was repeated several times with the same results. The reason I list those links to the same story is because some links have more info than the other ones.

...It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases:

1. "uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce."

2. "The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains."

3. "My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later."

4. "In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value."

5. "My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes."

6. "My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam."

So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that "the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.")

Hmmm...yea...big evidence.

 

[ikester7579]

Maybe these links will help you.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

http://www.homestead.com/WinterSteel/Soul.html

http://216.247.205.102/weighsoul.html

They are all about the same experiment. This experiment was repeated several times with the same results. The reason I list those links to the same story is because some links have more info than the other ones.

...It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases:

1. "uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce."

2. "The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains."

3. "My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later."

4. "In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value."

5. "My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes."

6. "My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam."

[quote:03b62]So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that "the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.")

Hmmm...yea...big evidence.[/quote:03b62]

Kinda sounds like the ort cloud, don't it?

 

[maranatha_man]

Duh, Yeah!! Might want to include the <<"INCA" Stones>> & whether they be proven "real' as well...???

btw - if anybody wants to research this - it's OORT Cloud... :wink:...but I'm sure Ikester's opinions on this are far more reliable.

 

[Slevin]

Kinda sounds like the ort cloud, don't it?

Instead of changing the subject, why don't you admit that your source actually shows how inadequate the experiment was?

 

[ikester7579]

Kinda sounds like the ort cloud, don't it?

Instead of changing the subject, why don't you admit that your source actually shows how inadequate the experiment was?

If you believe the source is bad, bring it to their attention. And a comparison is not changing the subject. Unless you are bias about using such things in discussions because they conflict with your scientific view that science is never wrong, and has never lied.

If not, then what's the problem with the comparison?

 

[maranatha_man]

:roll: Why certainly - Anybody attempting to present or search for more complete, accurate, or up-to-date information makes it perfectly clear beforehand in a sworn statement: "I hate God!! I hate God's children!! 'My' science and 'My' beloved evolutionary theory is always right!! The Bible is a lie!! I am a dirty atheist who hate Christians!! I am a LIAR!! 'My' science is God !! etc etc...., right??

That's great how this is so up-front, clearly expressed beforehand :roll:

...and I'm sure Ikester can cite direct examples of this. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Slevin]

If you believe the source is bad, bring it to their attention. And a comparison is not changing the subject. Unless you are bias about using such things in discussions because they conflict with your scientific view that science is never wrong, and has never lied.

If not, then what's the problem with the comparison?

I don't believe the source is bad, I believe the sources are good because it provided an unbiased review of why it should be taken with a grain of salt that this shows anything regarding the existence of a soul.

It was a bad experiment, ikester, that had many flaws.