Actually, the Human Genome Project was concluded years ago. The full human genetic code was 'decoded.' Human Genetics is now very well established. Also DNA can easily be cloned now, and genetic engineering is a very realistic possibility. In other words, we pretty much know everything there is to know about human DNA.GLo Jones said:I think you'll find the reason we can't yet literally 'create life' is because we still haven't worked out the minuscule and seemingly endless details of DNA. All life on our planet is derived from it, and yet it is so complex, that we cannot create our own yet. We must use pre-existing DNA for the time being.Sougo said:Well I for one do believe in a soul. My reasoning is this:
Scientists/Science cannot 'construct' a human, or really anything living by themselves. Even if they clone an animal, they have to implant it into a surrogate mother in order for it to be 'born.' In other words they could construct a being capable of living (something like Frankenstein) and plant in it a beating heart, a functioning brain and everything ... but this 'creation' will not live, as its missing a soul.
Heck, scientists cannot even 'create' bacteria ... they have to rely on other bacteria to do the reproducing in the 'natural' way.
DNA is the only thing stopping us, and even that's just a load of chemicals bound together in particular forms.
I'm not entirely sure, if I'm honest. I've always had that cartoony image in my head, of it being us as we were, but invisible. And we don't have legs, we have the wispy thing.Kragg said:what kind of ghosts do you mean?FreelanceButler said:I like to think when we die, we turn into ghosts. Thinking we have a soul makes thinking we turn into ghosts more likely.
Well by certain definitions, we've completely sequenced the Human Genome, but the HGP was never concluded, and continues to publish new material.Sougo said:Actually, the Human Genome Project was concluded years ago. The full human genetic code was 'decoded.' Human Genetics is now very well established. Also DNA can easily be cloned now, and genetic engineering is a very realistic possibility. In other words, we pretty much know everything there is to know about human DNA.GLo Jones said:I think you'll find the reason we can't yet literally 'create life' is because we still haven't worked out the minuscule and seemingly endless details of DNA. All life on our planet is derived from it, and yet it is so complex, that we cannot create our own yet. We must use pre-existing DNA for the time being.Sougo said:Well I for one do believe in a soul. My reasoning is this:
Scientists/Science cannot 'construct' a human, or really anything living by themselves. Even if they clone an animal, they have to implant it into a surrogate mother in order for it to be 'born.' In other words they could construct a being capable of living (something like Frankenstein) and plant in it a beating heart, a functioning brain and everything ... but this 'creation' will not live, as its missing a soul.
Heck, scientists cannot even 'create' bacteria ... they have to rely on other bacteria to do the reproducing in the 'natural' way.
DNA is the only thing stopping us, and even that's just a load of chemicals bound together in particular forms.
would you be aware that you are a ghost? could you see other ghosts?FreelanceButler said:I'm not entirely sure, if I'm honest. I've always had that cartoony image in my head, of it being us as we were, but invisible. And we don't have legs, we have the wispy thing.Kragg said:what kind of ghosts do you mean?FreelanceButler said:I like to think when we die, we turn into ghosts. Thinking we have a soul makes thinking we turn into ghosts more likely.
But for all I know, we could be those little specks some people think are ghosts. The fact we hang around after we're gone is as far as I go into it, really.
Of course. There'd be big ghost get togethers and they'll all have awesome drunk ghost parties.Kragg said:FreelanceButler said:I'm not entirely sure, if I'm honest. I've always had that cartoony image in my head, of it being us as we were, but invisible. And we don't have legs, we have the wispy thing.Kragg said:what kind of ghosts do you mean?FreelanceButler said:I like to think when we die, we turn into ghosts. Thinking we have a soul makes thinking we turn into ghosts more likely.
But for all I know, we could be those little specks some people think are ghosts. The fact we hang around after we're gone is as far as I go into it, really.
would you be aware that you are a ghost? could you see other ghosts?
tiney offshoot thought that really didnt deserve another topic but still interesting enough to share with the topic and not in pms, grey areas *shrug*FreelanceButler said:Of course. There'd be big ghost get togethers and they'll all have awesome drunk ghost parties.Kragg said:FreelanceButler said:I'm not entirely sure, if I'm honest. I've always had that cartoony image in my head, of it being us as we were, but invisible. And we don't have legs, we have the wispy thing.Kragg said:what kind of ghosts do you mean?FreelanceButler said:I like to think when we die, we turn into ghosts. Thinking we have a soul makes thinking we turn into ghosts more likely.
But for all I know, we could be those little specks some people think are ghosts. The fact we hang around after we're gone is as far as I go into it, really.
would you be aware that you are a ghost? could you see other ghosts?
But seriously, I have no idea. If I'm right, I suppose we'll find out once we've kicked the bucket.
Haven't we gone way off topic already though? I mean, wasn't this thread about souls before?
The loss of weight at death that came from nothing physical that they could find so they hypothesized that it could be a soul. Yes, that is me hunting the internet in hopes that "my views" have some shred of backing to them.esin said:Fun Fact, I was never disputing what he was testing or proving. I was disputing your baseless view that is 'scientific proof of a soul'. Absolutely nothing was proved there save for the fact that weight was lost and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that that weight had anything whatsoever to do with a 'soul'. That's just playing a game of Ad-Libs with things you don't yet fully understand.KEM10 said:Fun fact, he wasn't trying to prove you have a soul, he was attempting to disprove dead weight (the theory that you gain weight while dieing which explains why it is harder to move towards the end of life). It was after his first test that he saw the weight loss and thought he screwed up. Then it happened 3 or 4 more times, excluding the ones where the methodology was ruined. One scale was tampered with so no accurate reading was recorded (guy lost too much weight) and another died within 5 minutes of hitting the table so no baseline was formed.esin said:Ask yourself this; if none of us feared death, would we really even have come up with the idea of a soul in the first place? It just sounds like wishful thinking.KEM10 said:Now, since all things are made of matter and have weight, that 3/4 of an ounce could be assumed to be your soul.
I don't fear death, I just find this test fascinating and it is a form of scientific proof that there is a soul. Only problem is that it needs to be done again with modern technology to lock it into place for a full debunk or prove.
Using a sample size of six, wherein two had to be discarded due to a huge margin of error, is extremely unconvincing. Also, MacDougall's results have never been duplicated in following tests. When one study gets one result, and several get another, it's far more likely that the one was flawed.KEM10 said:The loss of weight at death that came from nothing physical that they could find so they hypothesized that it could be a soul. Yes, that is me hunting the internet in hopes that "my views" have some shred of backing to them.esin said:Fun Fact, I was never disputing what he was testing or proving. I was disputing your baseless view that is 'scientific proof of a soul'. Absolutely nothing was proved there save for the fact that weight was lost and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that that weight had anything whatsoever to do with a 'soul'. That's just playing a game of Ad-Libs with things you don't yet fully understand.KEM10 said:Fun fact, he wasn't trying to prove you have a soul, he was attempting to disprove dead weight (the theory that you gain weight while dieing which explains why it is harder to move towards the end of life). It was after his first test that he saw the weight loss and thought he screwed up. Then it happened 3 or 4 more times, excluding the ones where the methodology was ruined. One scale was tampered with so no accurate reading was recorded (guy lost too much weight) and another died within 5 minutes of hitting the table so no baseline was formed.esin said:Ask yourself this; if none of us feared death, would we really even have come up with the idea of a soul in the first place? It just sounds like wishful thinking.KEM10 said:Now, since all things are made of matter and have weight, that 3/4 of an ounce could be assumed to be your soul.
I don't fear death, I just find this test fascinating and it is a form of scientific proof that there is a soul. Only problem is that it needs to be done again with modern technology to lock it into place for a full debunk or prove.
If you saw my other post, this is more of an attempt to bring in the scientific to support the religious, not me clenching this flag and standing against the atheists. It is a study that was cut short that could have proved there is a soul. It is more of a conspiracy theory than an ad-lib, if you want to label it as such, but it is there. What "scientific proof" do you have for the soul not existing? Religion being wrong before is not a basis for saying the Bible is nothing but lies.
There was a pattern, but it is too small of a sample to fully determine if it is true. He actually stated in his paper that he needed more cases to fully prove it. But what other tests sure are you talking about? I haven't heard of anyone repeating his tests.mdk31 said:Using a sample size of six, wherein two had to be discarded due to a huge margin of error, is extremely unconvincing. Also, MacDougall's results have never been duplicated in following tests. When one study gets one result, and several get another, it's far more likely that the one was flawed.