September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Wright's "Bargain" Is a Sellout | Main | Does the Bible Support Rationality & Logic? (Audio) »

August 26, 2009

Comments

Louis,

>> I am convinced that if you attempt the number of changes required, you would end up with something dead.

why?

"So if you start with a human genome, and then you tweak, there exists a point at which, you no longer have a 'child of god', you have something else."

ToNy,

Some Aquinas might help us all here...Thomas Aquinas wrote about how a human being consists of two components, the physical and the spiritual. If Venter alters the genetic coding, this does not alter the spiritual coding - the two are distinct, interconnected, yet not in a determinative sense. That is, the soul is not a by-product of the body, nor is the body the constituent manifestation of the soul. Any definition of human beings must account not only for genetic identity but also spiritual identity. The essential components of the human soul, spirit, and mind include at least self-awareness, the ability to reason abstractly, language processing aptitude, a sense of humor, imagination, and (upon reaching full development) metaphysical reflection. So genetic composition, as well as all the other unique physiological traits, along with the spiritual / mental components, constitute an accurate portrait of the human person.

sage,

ok

so when Australopithecus afarensis died, did she face god's judgement?

how might we ascertain which genomes do?

Gracile australopiths shared several traits with modern apes and humans but yet she was still an ape... So no, she didn't have to answer to God!

prince,

and by what means can you verify this?

Apes don't answer to God... Verified!

Prince,

>> Apes don't answer to God. Verified!

uhmmmmmmmmmm...

You do realize that you're an ape, no?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

You believe everything Wikipedia tells you??? It must be right coming from them... 1st of all that picture looks nothing like a human to me from the article you sent me. I doubt it looks like you either?

I think it is fasinating that God made an animal that has similar traits to a human being. Good stuff! I DO realize I'm a human and an ape is an ape though. I know better than to fling poo on people when they walk by my house. I know how to work and make money and live in a sheltered atmosphere. I know what is right from wrong and I have morals. I haven't met many monkeys that are capable of doing these types of things... Now that I think of it, I haven't met any!

Where did they go wrong through the process of "Evolution"?? Go look that up on Wikipedia too. You're getting good at the "copy and paste" thing. I bet monkeys can't do that either... You reckon?

prince,

So are you saying that the biologists are wrong?

That in actuality, you are not a member of the hominoidea superfamily?

Scientist and Biologist classify us and animals in "family's" and "superfamily's" and so forth so I can't argue the fact that we are classified by some in a certain content. However, I DO know I am created in God's image and am definitley in His superfamily!

You can classify someone or something in a certain group but that doesn't make you the same as them. You can put a Christian in a group of Athiest and call them "students"... You would be right in doing so but the Christian is very different from the Athiest'... Just like the human is very different from the ape... Get it?

Prince,

Ah.

So some members of the hominoidea superfamily (aka APES) are judged by god, and some aren't?

ok.

how might we determine which ones are?

you mentioned that "looks" are one way to do it.

But i don't look much like an eskimo.

Can eskimos go to heaven? Or are they one of the non-special apes.

Eskimo's are humans and are able to hear and UNDERSTAND the Word of God so yes, they can be judged...

You believe in Evolution so... At some point Evolution messed Apes up big time and I guess humans got the dominate gene and continued to progress. Those will be judged. I guess Coko and friends got off the hook. Is that what you want to hear? As I said before, just because Wikipedia labeled us in the same family doesn't make us the Brady Bunch. We don't share the exact same strains of DNA a monkey does. There may be some similar strains and similar behaviors but humans are humans and monkeys are monkeys.. One Creator created everything, who's to say He didn't use some of the same ingridients???

Prince,

>> We don't share the exact same strains of DNA a monkey does.

which brings me to the first sentence i wrote on this blog:

well ok but the whole point is venter is tweaking the genome. So if you start with a human genome, and then you tweak, there exists a point at which, you no longer have a "child of god", you have something else.

so, when do i have something else?

Give me a number.

>> Apes don't answer to God. Verified!<< -- Prince

uhmmmmmmmmmm...

You do realize that you're an ape, no? -- Posted by: ToNy | August 31, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Didn't God make Man a Special Creation? God didn't take Man out of ape and make him a special ape, did He? Where does the Word of God say that He created Man a special ape?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape -- Posted by: ToNy | August 31, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Do you consider Wikipedia an authoritative reference?

Prince,

Ah.

So some members of the hominoidea superfamily (aka APES) are judged by god...-- Posted by: ToNy | August 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM

What "god"?

... and some aren't?-- Posted by: ToNy | August 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM

What "god" is doing the judging?

how might we determine which ones are?-- Posted by: ToNy | August 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Don't we have to look to see with whom God made Covenant?

Can eskimos go to heaven? Or are they one of the non-special apes.-- Posted by: ToNy | August 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Doesn't God say that, if one receives Him, through Christ, they go to Heaven?

prince, So are you saying that the biologists are wrong? That in actuality, you are not a member of the hominoidea superfamily? -- Posted by: ToNy | August 31, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Aren't dogs and cats mammals? Still, are they not still separate -- that is, dogs and cats? Or are they the same, by virtue of the fact that they are mammals?

ToNY, aren't you a bit concerned that you are more interested in similarities between Man and ape, that the differences aren't particularly helpful to you?

Isn't it worth your notice that Man and ape, even though scientists say they share 98% of the DNA, look and act so different, that, even though they share 98% DNA, ape has not progressed in eons, that with almost the same DNA, ape still can't analyze a painting and tell us his philosophy of the advantages and disadvantages of oil and watercolor?

Do you notice, ToNY, that, while apples and oranges are fruit, an apple is still no orange, and an orange is still no apple. Don't you see that they have things in common and other things not in common?

So, in this case, ToNY, are the similarities more important, or the differences?

Well said Mr. Incredible!

I'm not sure I'm following you on this "tweaking" thing Tony. I mean you can take some DNA from a human and some DNA from an Ape, mix it in a bowl and grow a mammel hypothetically speaking. That mammel will not be judges by God. I think you are trying to argure a lot of "what if's" and bringing forth am argument that will not have a final answer that's not laughable, just a theory...

Prince,

>> I'm not sure I'm following you on this "tweaking" thing Tony.

1 Scan Prince's genome
2 put it in a computer
3 change x number of letters
4 render the genome in an ovum
5 creature pops out

Provide an X such that, the resultant creature that pops out ceases to be a child of god.

give me a number

Mr. Incredible,

>> while apples and oranges are fruit, an apple is still no orange, and an orange is still no apple.

how much can we modify the apple's genome, until it is no longer an apple?

Tony, buddy, you're missing the point big time.

Scanning my genome and mixing numbers has nothing to do with anything other than a simple Science expiriment. Even if we were to do that you still have to have a creator, right? Sombody has to do the scanning. The computer and Scientist didn't evolve did it?

Maybe you can tweak numbers and genomes, I don't know but whatever pops out is not a child of God. I'm not sure what you are trying to point out. Once again, apples and oranges my friend!!!!

Prince,

>> but whatever pops out is not a child of God.

well, when you have children, whatever pops out has quite different letters than you.

So there exists an x number of changes to the genome such that the resultant construct is STILL a child of God.

I just want to know what the x is.

Give me a number.

My child will be of two human beings! The DNA of a human being. Hair, skin, nails of a human being. The letters may be changed but they will be changed within the realms of a human being in which was created in God's image, right????

If my wife and I pop out a baby ape then I will be sure to let you know first thing and we'll go from there. But something tells me he or she will not be an ape, gorilla, monkey of any kind. Call it a gut feeling... And you be sure to let me know when you see two monkeys pop out a baby human being as well. Keep me posted friend!

prince,

>> The letters may be changed but they will be changed within the realms of a human being

exactly

i just want to know how big the "realm" (aka the genetic variance) is

how bout two percent?

give me a number

>> but whatever pops out is not a child of God.<< -- Prince

well, when you have children, whatever pops out has quite different letters than you.

So there exists an x number of changes to the genome such that the resultant construct is STILL a child of God. -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Where does the Word of God say that everybody is a child of God?

Doesn't the Word of God say that only those who receive Christ have the "Power to become children of God"? [John 1:12 KJV]

The letters may be changed but they will be changed within the realms of a human being in which was created in God's image, right???? -- Posted by: prince | September 01, 2009 at 01:37 PM

Sorry, but not quite.

Conceived in iniquity; born in sin; or is it the other way around?

That's why we must be born again. Thanks to Adam and Eve.

If we are automatically Godly, Christ has no purpose.

>> while apples and oranges are fruit, an apple is still no orange, and an orange is still no apple. <<-- Mr. Incredible

how much can we modify the apple's genome, until it is no longer an apple?

A horse's tail has 1000 strands.

We pull one out. Is it still a horse's tail?

We pull another one out. Is it still horse's tail?

Mr. Incredible,

>> We pull another one out. Is it still horse's tail?

The problem i've posed is not really related to the Problem of Heaps.

Since you have adopted a romantic notion of biology/vitalism, there should exist a genetic variance for all life forms instantiated by God.

I just want to know the number of said variance.

Prince,

I jumped the gun.

You've already cleared up the fact that, when we are born, we are not yet children of God.

BEHOLD!

Maybe you can tweak numbers and genomes, I don't know but whatever pops out is not a child of God. -- Posted by: prince | September 01, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Had it not been for Adam and Eve remaking themselves in their own image, we would be children of God automatically, and we wouldn't have needed the Christ.

However, it is what it is; and that isn't undone until we are born again.

Thanks for your work!

I think you [Tony] are trying to argure a lot of "what if's" and bringing forth am argument that will not have a final answer that's not laughable, just a theory... -- Posted by: prince | September 01, 2009 at 06:49 AM

The Word of God calls such questions "foolish questions."

In his, "Notes on the Bible," Albert Barnes says,

There are many subjects of religion on which a vain and impertinent curiosity is exercised.

Mr. Incredible,

he wasn't talking about the fall ya cheesehead. he was referring to my question on genetic modeling

>> while apples and oranges are fruit, an apple is still no orange, and an orange is still no apple.<< -- Mr. Incredible

how much can we modify the apple's genome, until it is no longer an apple?

Isn't that a mite irrelevant? The scenario is specifically simple, isn't it?

Can you admit that an apple is not an orange, and that an orange is not an apple, even though they are fruit? "Fruit" is the common denominator, and, thereby, you can add them, can't you? However, that doesn't make the apple and orange, nor an orange and apple, does it?

>> We pull another one out. Is it still horse's tail? << -- Mr. Incredible

The problem i've posed is not really related to the Problem of Heaps. -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 03:21 PM

However, it is you, isn't it, who asked

how much can we modify the apple's genome, until it is no longer an apple?

In other words, how many strands of a horse's tail must we pull out before we no longer have a horse's tail? When do we have a legitimate question?

Since you have adopted a romantic notion of biology/vitalism... -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 03:21 PM

Really? Where?

...there should exist a genetic variance for all life forms instantiated by God. -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 03:21 PM

Which "life" are you talking about?

I just want to know the number of said variance. -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 03:21 PM

Say, wasup withe the machine language?

No diss intended, but are you a robot? Just askin'... Cuz, either you're a machine, or a bureaucrat, often one in/and the same.

Mr. Incredible,

he wasn't talking about the fall... -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 03:31 PM

What "fall"?

Oh, yes! You're talking about the "jump."

Well, the issue of "children of God" goes directly to the jump, doesn't it? After all, had it not been for the jump, we wouldn't need to be born again, isn't that correct?

>> Can you admit that an apple is not an orange, and that an orange is not an apple, even though they are fruit?

depends on if you think the Linnean Taxonomy stands as a referent for Natural Kinds.

One would have to know the answer to this question to answer that question.

there should exist a genetic variance for all life forms instantiated... -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 03:21 PM

"Instantiated"????

... by God.

I just want to know the number of said variance. -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 03:21 PM

What kinda genetic variance?

Walk us through what you want us to say.

Tony, you gittin' any closer t'answerin' any of my questions? Or don't you buy into all that about debate and discussion and give'n'take?

>> What kinda genetic variance?

variance in the genome

>> Can you admit that an apple is not an orange, and that an orange is not an apple, even though they are fruit?<< -- Mr. Incredible

depends on if you think the Linnean Taxonomy stands as a referent for Natural Kinds.

One would have to know the answer to this question to answer that question. -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 04:07 PM

Except that the grocer down the street knows the answer, doesn't he. It's not rocket Science, is it?

Who are you trying to impress, Tony?

So, let's review the basics:

Tony says that he doesn't know the difference between an apple and an orange, that, unless he can put it all to an equation, or an equation to it all, he will forgo shopping for fruit, unless and until Werner von Braun tells them otherwise.

>> What kinda genetic variance?<< -- Mr. incredible

variance in the genome -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 04:18 PM

I ask, "What kinda genetic variance," and the only clarification you can come up with is to say the same thing in a different order, is that it? My goodness.

Mr. Incredible,

>> I ask, "What kinda genetic variance," and the only clarification you can come up with is to say the same thing in a different order, is that it?

The question was in reference to the number of base pair difference allowed such that the organism maintains the taxon which has historically been assigned to it.

If you still don't understand I can't help you.

Could the grocer down the street tell the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus? Where is the line drawn? In fact, the line between closely related species is often much fuzzier than most people appreciate. The problem is that there is a genetic continuum between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus and between Homo and Australopithecus and the common ancestor of chimps and humans. When and where along this continuum do we insert a soul and/or become a “child of God”? How many differences in base pairs separate creatures with souls from creatures without souls? There must be a number, right?

As Tony suggests, one could also create a genetic continuum by altering the human genome. When is an individual derived from a population of Homo sapiens no longer Homo sapiens? At what point would the number of differences be so great that the individual would no longer be “soul-worthy”? There must be a number, because the claim is made that there too many differences between chimp genomes and human genomes to credit chimps with having souls, right? So, what if we artificially created as many differences between humans and genetically altered “humans” as there are between chimps and humans?

(By the way, do you know that chimps lack souls? I think that those who spend their lives studying chimps see far more similarities than differences with respect to humans, and I suspect they have their doubts about the “soullessness” of chimps. )

Could the grocer down the street tell the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Irrelevant, vis-à-vis my example.

Where is the line drawn? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Nowhere, we guess. Nobody knows anything. Everything is up in the air. There's no right. There is no wrong. There is no truth. There is no lie. There is no good. There is no bad.

In fact, the line between closely related species is often much fuzzier than most people appreciate. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

And, yet, there IS a line.

The problem is that there is a genetic continuum between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus and between Homo and Australopithecus and the common ancestor of chimps and humans. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

And, yet, they look different and act different. Side-by-side, the line is bright.

When and where along this continuum do we insert a soul and/or become a “child of God”? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Along about John 1:12.

How many differences in base pairs separate creatures with souls from creatures without souls? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Define, scientifically, "soul."

There must be a number, right? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Depends on whether you can define, scientifically, "soul."

As Tony suggests, one could also create a genetic continuum by altering the human genome. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Your point?

When is an individual derived from a population of Homo sapiens no longer Homo sapiens? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

More foolish questions.

paste one At what point would the number of differences be so great that the individual would no longer be “soul-worthy”? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Define, scientifically, "soul-worthy."

There must be a number... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Depends on whether you can define, scientifically, "soul."

... because the claim is made that there too many differences between chimp genomes and human genomes to credit chimps with having souls, right? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Scientifically, what's a "soul"? Can a scientist create it?

So, what if we artificially created as many differences between humans and genetically altered “humans” as there are between chimps and humans? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Too bad Hitler isn't around to ask him.

(By the way, do you know that chimps lack souls? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Yes, I know that.

I think that those who spend their lives studying chimps see far more similarities than differences with respect to humans... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Are similarities ALWAYS more important than differences? When handing out, say, drivers' licenses, is it more important to note the similarity between humans and Zippy, or the differences?

... and I suspect they have their doubts about the “soullessness” of chimps. ) -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Why you think that is?

>> I ask, "What kinda genetic variance," and the only clarification you can come up with is to say the same thing in a different order, is that it?<<-- Mr. Incredible,

The question was in reference to the number of base pair difference allowed such that the organism maintains the taxon which has historically been assigned to it. -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 04:39 PM

I still say that you're either a machine, or a bureaucrat.

If you still don't understand I can't help you. -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 04:39 PM

We already know that you're having trouble writing common, conversational English. You're one-a those who tries to impress with jargon. I'm sure somebody out there is impressed. I'm not.

If you still don't understand I can't help you. -- Posted by: ToNy | September 01, 2009 at 04:39 PM

Is this particular thread supposed to be exclusive to scientists, researchers and other self-identified "big shots" who think they have established themselves above the "commoners"; or is it for general discussion of the subject? Are we "commoners" intruding on royalty?

If it's for general discussion of the subject, why does Tony try to talk down to everybody, as though on a throne, and, then, when questioned about it, either ignores the question, or refuses to explain, in simple language, so that stupid idiots like me can understand, what he wrote? Is Tony THAT arrogant?

Mr. Incredible,

I see many words, but no real answers to the questions raised.


"Nowhere, we guess. Nobody knows anything. Everything is up in the air. There's no right. There is no wrong. There is no truth. There is no lie. There is no good. There is no bad."

As you would say, irrelevant, vis-à-vis my question. By the way, why was my point about the grocer’s ability (or lack of ability) to distinguish H. sapiens and H. erectus irrelevant?


"And, yet, they look different and act different. Side-by-side, the line is bright."

I don't think that the differences are nearly as great as you might think, nor is the line as bright as it may appear to some. This is one of the lessons of evolution.


"And, yet, there IS a line."

Maybe, but only if we compare two individuals separated by a very long period of time. However, at any one point in time, the difference from one generation to the next is slight. At the time a soul is bestowed, the genomes of the population immediately before the bestowing would have been almost indistinguishable from the genomes in the population granted a soul.

So, again, when and where do we cross the line to soulful humans? How many genetic differences existed between the last populations without souls and the first populations with souls? Did Homo erectus individuals have a soul?


“Depends on whether you can define, scientifically, "soul."

Define "soul" scientifically? I don't understand. This isn't a scientific term. You're the one talking about souls and "children of God" and how this makes humans different, so I think it's up to you to define the term. Once the term is defined, perhaps you can tell me at what point in the genetic continuum do we add the soul to the species now called Homo sapiens. (John 1:12 doesn’t answer the question.)


>When is an individual derived from a population of Homo sapiens no longer Homo sapiens?

"More foolish questions."

Really? Why? I take it that you can't answer the question.


"Too bad Hitler isn't around to ask him."

Godwin's Law is confirmed.

By the way, what you call "jargon" is just the language of science. What other words would you have Tony use for, say, "taxon"?

Mr. Incredible,

I see many words, but no real answers to the questions raised. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

I said that very same thing, in other words, to Tony. Still no answer.

I, on the other hand, have answered many questions. Most, in fact. The ones that I couldn't answer without more information, I have asked questions. Again, no answers.

"Nowhere, we guess. Nobody knows anything. Everything is up in the air. There's no right. There is no wrong. There is no truth. There is no lie. There is no good. There is no bad."

As you would say, irrelevant, vis-à-vis my question. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

It's very relevant.

By the way, why was my point about the grocer’s ability (or lack of ability) to distinguish H. sapiens and H. erectus irrelevant? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

Because my example didn't go to that. My example explained by Tony is wrong.

"And, yet, they look different and act different. Side-by-side, the line is bright."

I don't think that the differences are nearly as great as you might think... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

Oh? As I asked earlier, can Zippy explain a painter's use of watercolor over the choice of oil? Can Zippy tell us how a mirror works? Can he tell us the difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine?

... nor is the line as bright as it may appear to some. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

It's bright, all right.

This is one of the lessons of evolution. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

What is?

"And, yet, there IS a line."

Maybe, but only if we compare two individuals separated by a very long period of time. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

I can go to the zoo tomorrow and, without nary any effort, point to a man, then point to an ape, then explain the difference for everyone to see, and hear.

However, at any one point in time, the difference from one generation to the next is slight. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

I don't care about generations. A man is not an ape, and an ape is not a man, for the same reason that an apple is not an orange, and an orange is not an apple.

At the time a soul... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

Nobody knows what you mean by "soul." Yet, you use it as though you know what it means. Maybe you'd like to let us in on it.

... is bestowed... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

When is that, and who does the bestowing?

... the genomes of the population immediately before the bestowing would have been almost indistinguishable from the genomes in the population granted a soul. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

That statement is a train wreck.

Unless we know how you use the word, "soul" -- that is, its meaning, to what it refers -- that statement makes no sense.

So, again, when and where do we cross the line to soulful humans? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

Depends on the meaning of, "soul."

How many genetic differences existed between the last populations without souls and the first populations with souls? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

Give us the objective meaning of, "soul."

Did Homo erectus individuals have a soul? -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

God says He breathed into Man, and that Man became a living soul.

Is Homo erectus Man?

“Depends on whether you can define, scientifically, "soul."

Define "soul" scientifically? I don't understand. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

You don't understand??? My goodness.

This isn't a scientific term. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

And, yet, you use it as though it refers to some objective reality. If it's an objective reality, Science can point to it. So, scientifically, define the term, "soul."

You're the one talking about souls... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

I said nothing about "souls."

... and "children of God"... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

I didn't bring it up.

... and how this makes humans different... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

I said no such thing.

... so I think it's up to you to define the term. -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

As I say, I didn't use the term, "soul."

Once the term is defined... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

And I'm still waiting for those who use the word to define it.

... perhaps you can tell me at what point in the genetic continuum do we add the soul... -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

So, "we" add the soul, whatever the "soul" which you cannot define even though you use it is?

... to the species now called Homo sapiens. (John 1:12 doesn’t answer the question.) -- Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2009 at 08:01 PM

It answers the question, or the issue, to which it is applied in the earlier post.

The comments to this entry are closed.