It's all very fine him digging up these references but it's a nightmare trying to hop back and forth on an Android mobile. And perhaps it's being pointed out that our observations aren't actually the result of original thinking!

What definition of soul is in play, Geezer? I have a go here:

https://www.scoobynet.com/1019401-go...l#post11623658

I don't want to write a few paragraphs only for you to dismiss them on the grounds that I've not satisfactorily defined the subject. And can I assume that the 'igniting gas' analogy in the second vid' is unacceptable to you?

My position about "what" a soul is, is less important than "who" has a soul. It is always said that only man has a soul, its makeup is not so important. But the fact that theists now try to fit it scripture with evolution opens up the issue I highlight. I hope that makes it clearer.

interestingly some scientific studies have demonstrated a similarity in personality traits of footsie 100 CEO's and psycho/sociopaths

I don't think we needed any scientific research to know that ;)

I think I pointed out in an earlier thread that he is not working "alone"

Michael Lloyd presents, as I mentioned in the preceding post, a good explanation at 3:17 in the vid':

http://biologos.org/resources/videos/the-fall

I have quite a bit to add, but I'd like to deal with any objections you have to this before I move on to other parts of my argument.

These were actually the group to whom I was initially referring. I have first hand experience of their type:

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...l#post10144387

Yes, I work for one!

Ultimately, in the material world, we all do.

So the big G can't cure psychopathy, but he can help his followers keep very detailed track of their posts on Internet forums? Who woulda thought it ;)

yes rather worryingly my eldest son wants to become an investments banker !!

Well they're not all vampires and I'm sure you'll guide him as best you can.

Psychopathic traits such as ruthlessness, toughness, charm, focus and a general lack of empathy are perfect for those who must exhibit coolness under pressure, and who must take decisions that may result in a great outcome or a total disaster. They are fine when in an occupation that regularly puts them to the test in this way, not so good when their service time is up.

Most educational, and amusing that Honan includes saints and surgeons among his list of functioning psychopaths.

I think it was Dutton that included them, but yes, I thought the former in particular would please you. :lol1:

Yes Dutton, sorry. Skim reading catches me out again!

Interesting that psychopathic traits might be present, even a requirement, in a variety of unlikely professions. Do you think that Ghandi, MLK, maybe Jesus, could slot in there somewhere?

They're not normally people with whom I'd associate the 'psycho' label, but certainly other world leaders. I'd also put sportsmen in there. Certainly your Lance Armstrongs and maybe even the super fearless F1 drivers. Just speculation of course.

P.S. Certainly somebody like Jeanne D'Arc, maybe 'Mother' Teresa and earlier popes.

Why sportsmen? Rampant cheats excluded, the main qualities they need for success in their field is a good helping of genetic good fortune to make them naturally suited to whatever specific sport they practice, and some self-discipline. In the case of something like F1, I'd even go so far as to say that the instinctive and unnaturally high craving for adrenaline, and the accompanying blindness to the extreme danger often involved in getting it are completely at odds with the calculating nature of a psycopath.

Your last sentence actually lists two of the main ingredients of the psychopath's nature. Add in ruthlessness, charisma, determination to succeed irrespective of others, focus, coolness under extreme pressure; these are further indicators of psychopathy. It sounds exactly like Schumacher, Hamilton, Vettel, and rest of the F1 gang to me.

I don't doubt for a second that most psychopaths get a buzz out of what they do, the point is that they have far better control over their need for that buzz, and are far more risk-conscious.

I suspect it is quite complicated

serial killers who are undoubtedly psychopaths speak of "uncontrollable" urges and tend, over time, to take more risks

Sorry for the delay in replying, been very busy! I had already listened to that, but I listened again from the point you said.

I understand what he is saying (or rather trying to justify), but saying that the fall is the point at which humans gained sufficient moral standards and consciousness, to me, still leaves questions that highlight the fact that they ar just trying to fit an idea which is immovable and unproven to something that science has revealed to us.

If God starts evolution, 3.5 billion years ago, there are two possibilities.

• He knows that evolution will lead to humans
• He has no idea where evolution will lead

The first one would lead me to say, why wait 3.5 billion years until you get to the point you want? You may say that God is timeless, so it's the blink of an eye, or something like that, but still, for mere mortals, it's a long time. What is the point of allowing pre-determined evolution to happen for that long if you know it will lead to humans?

That video would have you think that all humans blinked in to consciousness at the same second, but obviously that is on the case, as other branches of hominids show. If Neanderthal and Homo Sapien had both developed some sort of moral standard, obviously both had consciousness as they had developed language, tool making, social interaction, then once again, will there be Neanderthals in Heaven? Or, why did he allow them to become extinct? Even if you say that for some reason, only Homo Sapiens were the chosen ones, what about the half breeds? Hell, there's loads of Neanderthal in current humans, ginger hair, anyone?

The second one seems a bit pointless. It could be that humans would never have evolved, or the Earth would have been destroyed (we know that life was nearly snuffed out a few times in its history). What would he have done then?

It all just smacks of posturing, the more that science reveals about the Universe, the less places God has to hide, and the more creative (no pun intended ;) ) man has to be to fit the myth in.

Not at all and thanks for taking the time to listen and respond.

What theistic evolutionists (TE) say is that we are made in God's image at the point we become sufficiently conscious of conciousness and develop in the ways described in the vid'. The Fall comes, as Polkinghorne goes on to describe, when we turn away from God and in on ourselves.

So, a couple of issues here. I'm a proponent of God-directed evolution and believe we're evolving towards the Omega Point. This takes time. We just happen to be living at a period in the history of the universe that has borne witness to our first tentative steps out into space; how unlikely is that?! It's as unlikely as God coming to earth 2000 years ago to restore us back to Him.

No, 'Adam and Eve' "blinked in to conciousness".

Only descendants of Adam and Eve are subject to heaven and hell.

Why did He and does He allow any creatures to become extinct?

In theistic terms, one is defined as human by having an immortal soul. Even gingers.

Well it didn't happen did it? What would have happened if an infinite number of other possibilities occurred? They didn't occur and here we are. Miraculous!

The idea that modern science has primacy over God displays depressingly similar parallels to the story of the Fall. Thinking we're God rather than knowing we're in His image is a dangerous game. In the 20th century, The Lord, sovereign over all things, gave us a taste of where our power can lead us - man as god was a disaster! Let's get back to the Garden.

not sure how this fits in with evolution


Yes again a fallacious argument – and it assume we are the end goal of evolution (which we are not), it is more accurate to say we are the (or a) “result” of the evolutionary process

Creationist, Anti Evolutionist use this argument all the time, often in the context of a whale – arguing “what are the chances that ALL those improvements would turn a land based mammal in to a whale” – impossible ergo there must be an overall “guiding hand”

But this logic only works if you start from the whale and work backwards i.e. start from a pre-determined position – but it does not work like that – in the same way that "what are the chances of the exact 5 people who have won the euromillions winning" it – well the odds on predicting those exact 5 people would be infinitesimally small, yet like the whale – there they are

and here we are!!!

and no miracles required

So you mean intelligent design? That is not evolution. It's a very important difference. Evolution cannot be directed, it is not evolution if so.


But, that notwithstanding, why bother? If you are powerful enough to control evolution, and your ultimate aim is to make humans who you can save, why bother? Cut out all the rubbish in between and bam, ready made humans.


God works in mysterious ways or we do not know the mind of God are just cop outs, let's be honest.




I'd like you to clarify this point, if you would. Are you talking about an actual Adam and Eve, or a figurative couple? The former would indicate that you either accept Genesis as literal, which you have already said you do not, or you are advocating that by some miracle, two early homo sapiens suddenly gained consciousness, which is clearly preposterous and not what that video says at all.




We know that all humans are not descended from two people, so again, is this literal or not? If not, then we go back again to how that does not fit in with what happened.




Indeed, what is the point?




Even God has to draw the line somewhere :lol1:



If it happens by chance that we are here, then God adds nothing. If it is not chance, then we go back to theistic evolution, which isn't really evolution at all, and again, what's the point?


Which part of the 20th century are you referring to? Sure, there were parts where things went wrong (but let's face it, compared to previous times they weren't so bad, we just had more efficient tools to kill with), but on the flip side, the 20th century delivered some fantastic scientific breakthroughs that allowed us to do things we never have before, cure disease (put on Earth by God if you believe that...) etc etc.


Why do religious people always give God credit for good stuff, but the fall for bad stuff. A bit too convenient eh?

It's a picture of the amalgam that is Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve at the point of becoming conscious of consciousness i.e. concerned about the past, present and future, knowing God, aware of mortality and so forth.

Ok, that's the atheist position, you're an atheist. I'm not, so my starting point is God exists and that the scientific method, properly applied, allows us to understand as best we can His handiwork. If you don't think our existence is miraculous, you have no one to be thankful too, nothing to be thankful for, no meaning and no purpose. I'd give-up if I were you.

I do not mean ID, if I were a proponent I would have expressed that already. Evolution can be directed if you are a TE. Scientism does not have a monopoly on truth.

The method we observe is that which God has ordained.

Why be honest? If God doesn't exist and it's advantageous to lie, let's do that. Afterall, according to your worldview it's unnecessary for there to exist an entity to watch the watchmen.

Figurative in the physical/historical sense, but as a conveyor of deep spiritual truth, the Adam and Eve story is to be taken literally.

See above, including the answer to Hodgy's objection.

Good question. According to you and Hodgy, there isn't one.

I'm not entirely sure that I've been blasphemous. :o

I contend that TE is evolution. I'm not going to allow this, it's straw.

The part that began with the Nietzschean idea that 'God is dead' and the Godless idea that eugenics was moral and that totalitarianism was the natural step for man and that social Darwinism should be allowed to dominate. That part.

I don't know, I'm not religious. As a Christian I can refer you back to the Fall, not because it's convenient, but because I believe it to be the truth.