Does man have a soul?

[EarthScienceguy]

What is the true physical and spiritual nature of man? Does man have a soul?

Over the centuries there has been three categories that these theories fall into.

1. the naturalistic theories which makes man an animal like any other creature. Naturalistic evolution would fall into this category. Although this theory will struggle in this discussion to overcome current theories in cosmology that makes man some sort of virtual creature instead of a specific entity. Man is void of free will because the future already has to be determined.

In this view man is only material.

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

3. Creator God. Each man is an individual entity. Man is not God and God is not man. God created man as an living being distinct from rest of creation. The only thing that man has in common with the animals is the life processes that make them up.

In this view man consist of a material body and an eternal soul.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 39 by DrNoGods]

Oh! So you are saying the Earth is an open system. Most people describe the Earth as basically a closed system. But I can go along with it being an open system. This does nothing to my argument.

The examples that I gave you back on post 35 about the car and the plant are both open systems. It does not matter open, closed, or isolated to make energy useful it has to follow the laws of thermodynamics, because these are the laws that govern the flow of energy from one place to another and from one form to another.

The laws of thermodynamics were developed to harness the energy of steam back at the turn of the century. These laws were essential for the industrial revolution to take place.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 40 by EarthScienceguy]

Not a single quantitative analysis of the energy involved. This article is nothing more than a statement of the author's belief. Not a rigorous proof of the energies involved in evolution.

You keep moving the goal posts and making vague statements. In post 26 you made a claim that the theory of evolution violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and that is what I am responding to. Evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and vague statements about "energies involved in evolution" certainly don't quantify anything either.

What is your point? Since the earth is an open system, and the sun is a tremendous energy source providing energy to the earth, there is plenty of energy available for evolution to take place as well as many other processes. The earth itself is also an energy source (eg. the radioactive decay that occurs interior to the earth and provides a lot of heat energy). So there is clearly plenty of energy available for the process of evolution.

But you don't seem to have an actual point, so I'm asking you to clarify what that point is. In post 26 it was a claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the standard anti-evolutionist mistake with that claim is the assumption of a closed system for the earth. Now you are talking about "energies involved in evolution" without any specifics. Clarify your point.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 41 by EarthScienceguy]

Oh! So you are saying the Earth is an open system. Most people describe the Earth as basically a closed system. But I can go along with it being an open system. This does nothing to my argument.

There is no question on whether the earth is an open system or not ... it is. That isn't up for debate.

The examples that I gave you back on post 35 about the car and the plant are both open systems. It does not matter open, closed, or isolated to make energy useful it has to follow the laws of thermodynamics, because these are the laws that govern the flow of energy from one place to another and from one form to another.

No argument there. This is common knowledge.

The laws of thermodynamics were developed to harness the energy of steam back at the turn of the century. These laws were essential for the industrial revolution to take place.

And what has this got to do with how evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You're all over the place with these responses which I assume is to evade the basic question being debated. You claimed in post 26 that evolution violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Explain why you think that is the case, given that the earth is an OPEN system.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

There is no question on whether the earth is an open system or not ... it is. That isn't up for debate.

https://study.com/academy/answer/why-is ... ystem.html

Google is a little confused then if Earth is not a closed system. So there does seem to be a little but of a debate. Not that it pertains to this discussion.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=stri ... 27&bih=556

Quote:
The examples that I gave you back on post 35 about the car and the plant are both open systems. It does not matter open, closed, or isolated to make energy useful it has to follow the laws of thermodynamics, because these are the laws that govern the flow of energy from one place to another and from one form to another.


No argument there. This is common knowledge.

Good so you agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply in an open, closed or isolated system. So do I am that is what I am saying.

Life also has to follow the laws of thermodynamics that means that life has to follow the equation

dG= dH - TdSth - TdSc

G is gibbs free energy
H is enthalpy
Sth is entropy of thermal work
Sc is Configurational entropy


A plant or animal is living as long as TdSth and TdSc are 0 meaning that there is only one path for energy flow and only one arrangement that the atoms can have.

Now when a plant or animals dies then the energy has more than one path to take. There fore TdSth is not longer 0. And there are many arrangements that the atoms can have therefore TdSc also is not longer 0.

This is why plants and animals begin to decay when they die.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 44 by EarthScienceguy]

A plant or animal is living as long as TdSth and TdSc are 0 meaning that there is only one path for energy flow and only one arrangement that the atoms can have.

Now when a plant or animals dies then the energy has more than one path to take. There fore TdSth is not longer 0. And there are many arrangements that the atoms can have therefore TdSc also is not longer 0.

This is why plants and animals begin to decay when they die.

I'll ask again ... what does this have to do with supporting your claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Random statements (and some not correct, such as the first one above that there is only "one arrangement that the atoms can have") about thermodynamics don't have anything to do with the basic claim that evolution violates the 2nd law.

I accept thermodynamics as science has it framed and quantified ... I'm not arguing against that at all. What I am challenging is your claim in post 26 that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And you are responding with generic statements about why plants and animals decay when they die. Do you have a connection between plants and animals decaying when they die, and how evolution violates the 2nd law?

This claim that evolution violates the 2nd law is a common one made by anti-evolutionists, and has been floating around out there for decades (and debunked for that long as well). You don't seem to have any "new" information to support this claim, but are simply now making random statements about thermodynamics without tying them to evolution and the 2nd law.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 45 by DrNoGods]

Are you trying to suggest that an animal does not decay when it dies? If not why does an animal decay when it dies?

So you agree that thermodynamics applies to all other aspects of nature except life.

Quote:
The examples that I gave you back on post 35 about the car and the plant are both open systems. It does not matter open, closed, or isolated to make energy useful it has to follow the laws of thermodynamics, because these are the laws that govern the flow of energy from one place to another and from one form to another.


No argument there. This is common knowledge.

Is that what you are saying? Why?

Why does a plant and animal start to decay when they die and not when they are living in thermodynamic terms?

You have yet to explain yourself in thermodynamic terms and equations. I gave you the equation that I was using for my calculation and then you said that it did not apply in a closed system. Then you did agree that the same equation did apply in open, closed and isolated systems.

So explain to me using thermodynamic equations why something decays when it dies and not when it is living.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 46 by EarthScienceguy]

Are you trying to suggest that an animal does not decay when it dies? If not why does an animal decay when it dies?

Where did you get that from? I made no such suggestion or anything close to that.

So you agree that thermodynamics applies to all other aspects of nature except life.

Except life? Again, where did you get that from. I made no such statement or suggestion.

So explain to me using thermodynamic equations why something decays when it dies and not when it is living.

Moving the goal posts again. The issue is your claim in post 26 that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why living things decay when they die has nothing to do with that claim, or at least you have not been able to supply any connection. I keep asking, but you keep replying with random, unrelated comments and evading the main point, which is how evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as you claimed in post 26.

As for why living things decay when they die, you don't need thermodynamics to explain that. Fungi, bacteria, etc. go to work on the dead organism and essentially decompose it by their actions (assuming the dead organism isn't outright eaten and digested by another animal). This is a common process and well understood, but I'll ask yet again, what does this have to do with evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and why would any thermodynamic explanation of fungi and bacteria attacking dead organisms and essentially feeding on the remains help explain this claim?

I won't waste any more time with this since you obviously don't have an answer so keep evading the issue with posts like this one, and inferring things from my comments that I didn't actually either say or infer. Besides, this claim has been debunked countless times already so no need to rehash those arguments again.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 28 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Homo Hablis Skull

This guy is interesting a little controversial but still interesting.

1. Back in 2010 "statistical baraminology techniques" confirmed creationist claims that hominids can be divided into human and non-human categories.
2. Even though this same study put Homo Hablis into the human category it still does not seem to have settled the issue as to whether this is an ape or a human. In fact scientist place Homo Hablis not in the human line.

Relationships with other species
This species was initially considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans but fossil discoveries in the mid-1980s showed that Homo habilis had rather ape-like limb proportions. This evidence led to a reassessment of Homo habilis and its relationship to modern humans. Many scientists no-longer regard this species as one of our direct ancestors and instead have moved it onto a side branch of our family tree.

The debate about Homo habilis continues following the discovery of some skulls at Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia. Two of the skulls are very similar to Homo ergaster but one appears to have features intermediate between Homo habilis and Homo ergaster and may represent a link between these two species. If so, Homo habilis may be a direct ancestor of modern humans or that they both evolved from a yet-undiscovered species. Homo habilis arose at a time when there is a relative gap in the fossil record (between 2 and 3 million years ago). This makes it difficult to determine where it came from or how it is related to the earlier australopithecines. More fossil evidence is needed to resolve this issue.

https://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-habilis


Neanderthals

They were humans.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661

Amoeba


Planarian


Anaconda

Yeah, that is real convincing.

But thank you for pointing out the problem that the Planarian has a whole lot of organized information that the Amoeba does not have. And the Anaconda has information that the Planarian does not have.

It takes energy to organize the genome into the correct sequence to create all of these animals. And to organize how these animals use and transport energy. This extra energy to preform these tasks breaks the second law of thermodynamics so this "evolution" as you say is impossible.

We humans have artificially selected for big, juicy ears of corn by continuously selecting those traits we prefer and then cultivating the type that have the traits we value. We have done the same thing to dogs. Each successive generation represents a "transitional stage."

Great example of how extreme variation requires a designer.

A expected lifespan of a modern human is typically 80 years or so. Up from about age fifty in 1900. What exactly does the word "gradual" mean to you? For large creatures that reproduce slowly and live for years, evolutionary change can only be expected to become apparent over the course of tens of thousands of years. The real question of course is, "are humans evolving?" Humans are rapidly diversifying. But we have not evolved into separate species over the course of the last 10,000-15,000 years. Will that happen? Only if human populations undergo long periods of isolation from each other, and the populations become much smaller and are under pressure to survive. What we are currently witnessing in the human population is simple diversification. Because humans are very good at surviving long enough to reproduce.

This kind of reasoning has always been very upsetting to me. Because this is the same kind of reasoning that men use to enslave other men and to kill other men. If they can prove that one kind of man is not as evolved as another type of man then there is no reason to consider the worth of that person.

More specifically, in flagrante delicto Y, a newly described gene on the fruit fly Y chromosome. The gene appears to have been copied onto the sex chromosome from another fly chromosome around 2 million years ago, scientists report September 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Flagrante delicto Y is 98 percent identical to the gene from which it was copied, and the researchers believe that the new gene has a similar function: helping organize cells’ genetic material. Unlike its predecessor, flagrante delicto Y is expressed mainly in the testes.

This is hardly new information. One gene copied onto another gene means that the information already existed. This is not new information.

The answer, in case you missed it, is that the human population 12,000 years ago was 1 to 10 million. The human population today is 7+ billion.

This fits perfectly with the creation account. I will sure to use this in the future.

You do understand that fossils are rare and difficult to find, I hope?

Heck yea, I do and I also know why. Because whenever animals die they have to be buried quickly otherwise they will decay. So it would be a very rare event that this would happen. In fact it is amazing that we have as many fossils as we do. Almost like there was a flood over the whole earth that buried all of the animals that we find in the fossil record.


Life also has to follow the laws of thermodynamics that means that life has to follow the equation

dG= dH - TdSth - TdSc

G is gibbs free energy
H is enthalpy
Sth is entropy of thermal work
Sc is Configurational entropy


A plant or animal is living as long as TdSth and TdSc are 0 meaning that there is only one path for energy flow and only one arrangement that the atoms can have.

Now when a plant or animals dies then the energy has more than one path to take. There fore TdSth is not longer 0. And there are many arrangements that the atoms can have therefore TdSc also is not longer 0.

This is why plants and animals begin to decay when they die.

ENOME RESEARCH

Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack
Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide

Glycobiology Research and Training Center, Departments of Medicine and Cellular & Molecular Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA

The chimpanzee genome sequence is a long-awaited milestone, providing opportunities to explore primate evolution and genetic contributions to human physiology and disease. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor ~5-7 million years ago (Mya). The difference between the two genomes is actually not ~1%, but ~4%—comprising ~35 million single nucleotide differences and ~90 Mb of insertions and deletions.

Copyright © 2017 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full

Muscle for muscle, bone for bone, organ for organ, humans are apes. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor a few million years ago. A few million years earlier even still, humans and chimps shared a common ancestor with gorillas and orangutans.

Or it could be 81% like Thompson and Bergman suggest.

Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman, “Genomic Monkey Business—Estimates of Nearly Identical Human-Chimp DNA Similarity Re-evaluated Using Omitted Data,� Creation Ministries International, accessed December 16, 2015, http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-sim ... -evaluated.

Or it could be 70% like Bugg's suggest

Richard Buggs, “Chimpanzee?� Reformatorisch Dagblad, October 10, 2008, http://www.refdag.nl/.chimpanzee_1_282611; “An Automatic Comparison of the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes,� Progetto Cosmo, accessed December 16, 2015, http://progettocosmo.altervista.org/ind ... iew&id=130; Tomkins, “Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%,� Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 63–69, https://answersingenesis.org/answers/re ... romosomes/; among others.


or 88-90%

In the 2005 Nature paper describing the elucidation of the chimpanzee DNA sequence (accessable at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 04072.html), the authors stated, “Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) [2,400,000,000 DNA letters] of highquality sequence, including 89 Mb [89,000,000 DNA letters] from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb [7,500,000 DNA letters] from chromosome Y� (p.71). Only these 2,400,000,000 DNA letters were used to calculate the published 1.23% DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees. In table 1 of the same paper, it is clear that 2.7 gigabases (GB) — 2,700,000,000 DNA letters — in total were sequenced, leaving 0.3 GB

Take your pick.


So lets take a look at where we stand.

Evolutionary claim
Human - chimpanzee genetic identity is 98-99%

Actual data
Actual genetic identity is only 88% (400,000,000 DNA differences
between the two species)


Evolutionary claim
Humans chromosome #2 arose via fusion of two ape-like chromosomes

Actual Data
The purported "fusion" site is actually a functional DNA element in human
gene


Evolutionary claim
Gene order along chromosomes has no function, therefore shared gene
order demonstrates common ancestry

Actual Data
Gene order along chromosomes does indeed perform a function




Evolutionary claim
Humans and chimpanzees shared genetic mistakes (e.g., pseudogenes)

Actual Data
Pseudogenes appear to be functional DNA elements, not mistakes



Evolutionary claim
Humans possess the broken remnants of an ancient chicken gene
(vitellogenin)

Actual Data
No such remnant exists; instead the “fragment� appears to be a functional
DNA element


In your make believe holographic world you might imagine what you would like life to be like. But here in the real world based on facts evolution is simply not supported by the evidence and the laws of Nature.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 47 by DrNoGods]

Sure if that is the way you feel thanks for the discussion.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 12 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Here you are not understanding the Nature of God.

He exist at all points in space and at all points in time. So in essences the entire timeline to Him happens in the same instant of time.

So yes God can direct all the events and affairs of men. And yes we have free will.