If ghosts are real why aren't there any dinosaur ghosts??? Just old victorian women in white dresses with candlesticks. I wanna see a velociraptor ghost god damn it.
kek also do black ghosts still ruin ghost neighborhoods
>>39592668
No, that is a deed left to the living
>>39592597
Dinosaurs don't have dinosouls.
>>39592907
On this note, would any Christfags like to answer my question?
Do you believe in evolution?
If no, you're retarded.
If yes, at which point did humans gain 'souls'? Was there just one generation where God was like "fuck your parents, they don't get souls, but you do, so you can live eternally knowing that your parents were soulless automatons, pitiful husks devoid of any humanity"?
Or did every generation have souls, even the self-replicating proto-proto "cells" - really nothing more than just chemicals?
>>39593494
The Bible teaches that there is consciousness in all things, and also in eternal life.
I think there aren't any old ghosts because they get reincarnated, eventually.
>>39593494
I'm not a Christfag but I suppose the answer is "whenever they became self-aware"
>>39593800
>The Bible teaches that there is consciousness in all things
Panpsychism is pagan heresy. It has no biblical support.
>>39593868
What is "self awareness", really?
Whatever it is, surely people are not "self aware" 24/7, are they?
believing in ghosts is retarded. If ghosts were real they'd come up and talk to you, not float around being assholes all day
>>39594013
Meaning knowing who you are, having a concept of identity and mortality, mirror test etc
>>39594023
>implying I wouldn't constantly fuck with people if I were a ghost
>>39592597
Because you only see ghosts of things that are your species. If you were a dinosaur you'd see dinosaur ghosts, but since you're a robot you only see robot ghosts.
>>39592597
There are many accounts of ghostly animals throughout history. Dogs in particular.
>>39594117
That's some scientific shit right there!
>>39593973
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
-Isaiak 55:12
Dinosaurs lack the psychic energy to create a residual etheric body. even if they did, it would have dissipated long ago.
>>39594117
bullshit, I saw a dog ghost once. OP's right, no dinosaur ghosts is bullshit
Its because dinosaurs were a hoax retard.
>>39594694
where are all the fuckin mountain ghosts then?
>>39594055
>having a concept of identity and mortality, mirror test etc
so by that line of reasoning, there are orangutan ghosts?
>>39593494
>Do you believe in evolution?
>If no, you're retarded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
>if you don't believe in this un-substansiated doctrine of (((science))) then you are retarded.
It's just bad science.
>Evolution
There's no such thing as "Evolution" there is Evolutionary biology, Evolutionary psychology, Evolutionary physics, Evolutionary bio-chemistry. But there's no "Evolution" no monolithic doctrine which we must accept purely because someone tells us to.
Stop being a brainlet.
>when did Humans gain souls
Darwin said we gained them around the time of the Neanderthals.
Read the Descent of Man. Charles Darwin posits God creating Man via "Evolution" and man becoming filled with consciousness when he evolved sufficiently to understand and have a relationship with God.
>one generation
Adam and Eve would have been the first of any kind.
>their parents
probably didn't realize it since we barely realize it now.
Your post and OP reek of Reddit.
>>39594013
That which can question it's own nature. I should think, one who is Aristotelian.
>not self aware 24/7 are they
It is a state of being that is participated in by virtue of existing as they do ,dipshit, not an action that you do.
>>39592597
no souls
>old victorian women
You haven't seen many ghosts have you?
Oh wait, you're from r/cringetheism
>>39594694
>I don't possess the capacity to understand poetic musings
>"well how do we know its poetic musing?"
It literally says it's about singing praise throughout the chapter.
>>39594862
We can not demonstrate that orangutans have any of those things.
The biological will is not conscious.
It can not question it's own determinism like man can.
>>39594960
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU
>2017
>believing Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't exist
Look at these links and educate yourself. That or get yourself checked for aspergers.
>>39595006
>We can not demonstrate that orangutans have any of those things
Actually...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okmkn30D0NU
And if you claim it to be impossible for us to determine the level of sapience of other animals, you can't also claim they can't be sapient, as you just said there's no way to determine that...
>>39595042
>>believing Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't exist
>believing in untested, unfalsifiable, un-substantiated collections of hypothesis
It's time to stop posting, friend.
watch the vid I posted, educate yourself.
I can post some more critiques if you'd like?
Oh no, I'm not a creationist, I just don't think Darwinian theory is good science, in fact its by all metrics not science at all. To insinuate even for a second it is on the level that physics has reached is not only laughable but contemptible.
>>39595090
>actually
you didn't refute or challenge anything I said
>recognizing himself
This makes him an existential philosopher?
I can claim they aren't sapient. You think I can't substantiate that claim.
Well I can, we develop a criteria for sentience, and when they do not reach it we determine them to be non-sentient, non-questioning, etc.
>>39592597
souls turn into ghosts and dinos have no souls
>>39595201
>thinking evolution is untested, unfalsifiable, or unsubstantiated
>not looking at the links I provided, especially the first one which lays out tons of exactly the evidence he wants
>being this retarded
Watch what I posted and educate yourself.
>I'm not a creationist
Then please, tell me what you believe is the reason for biological diversity and gradual change in population genetics?
>you didn't refute or challenge anything I said
Actually, yeah I did... Or did you forget you'd mentioned the mirror test?
>we develop a criteria for sentience, and when they do not reach it we determine them to be non-sentient, non-questioning, etc
Then go ahead and develop such a test. And make sure to find a way to ensure its accuracy across all possible communication methods.
>>39595364
>Then please, tell me what you believe is the reason for biological diversity and gradual change in population genetics?
You don't need to prove anything to me, that's more easily condensed with "Explain why children are different from their parents and each other."
I doubt you deal with exponentially large quantities of scientific information, but if you ever do, you want to condense the questions down to a single concept or principle so it can be more easily tackled.
Why are things the way they are? Beats me.
>the mirror test means they must also possess a concept of mortality (rational mortality, not instinctual deference) and identity
kind of dumb to conflate those things with a mirror test.
>And make sure to find a way to ensure its accuracy across all possible communication methods.
So we can't perform any science unless we are omniscient? Then there'd be no point in science at all.
I've already stated the criteria here >>39594960
>one who is Aristotelian
To demand proof of proof of proof, or a litmus test for a litmus test, well, you can see why that's retarded or at least not pragmatic.
I think it's nice that you didn't address anything else but what I said about "Evolution" conceptually not being scientific.
You probably don't care, I don't blame you, intellectual pursuits aren't for everyone.
As an ex-christfag I always wondered about retarded people and what would happen to them if there was an afterlife? Do they get a pass?
I work with retarded people now and we got this one guy who is super autistic who just head bangs and bites himself all day. There's nothing behind those eyes looks like I'm staring into a dog's eyes or something. What happens to him?
>>39595535
>Why are things the way they are? Beats me.
So instead of have confidence in the tested, substantiated theory with proven predictability -contrary to what your ass burger ass claims - you just claim ignorance. Fascinating.
>the mirror test means they must also possess a concept of mortality (rational mortality, not instinctual deference) and identity
"The mirror test, sometimes called the mark test or the mirror self-recognition test (MSR), is a behavioural technique developed in 1970 by psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. as an attempt to determine whether a non-human animal possesses the ability of visual self-recognition."
Kind of dumb to not know what the mirror test is.
>So we can't perform any science unless we are omniscient?
Ensuring reliable data is hardly the same as omniscience...
>I think it's nice that you didn't address anything else but what I said about "Evolution" conceptually not being scientific.
I've addressed everything you've said, including your incorrect and flat-out asinine claim that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is "unscientific", and given you resources to verify what I've said.
You probably care, but I don't blame you for not wanting to look into it; intellectual honesty isn't for everyone.
Though, it ought to be.
>>39595629
The existence of retardation is just another point of evidence against the assertion of anything resembling the Abrahamic god.
>>39595666
absolutely euphoric.
Retards are evidence there is no god.
I would have gone with niggers, but that's just me.
>>39595646
>tested, substantiated theory with proven predictability
>pic rel
really gets the noggin joggin
>to not know what the mirror test is
Except, I said it's not demonstrating a sense of existential consciousness... which is correct as far as I know.
>ensuring reliable data
Oh, so we aren't going down the rabbit hole of proof-ad-infinitum?
Good. I have to wonder, what ensures Evolutionary theory as being reliable? We don't really have a way to test if Birds come from Dinos.
>I've addressed everything you've said
I guess I rest my case with the question of your reading comprehension. So be it.
You clearly didn't examine my source and instead you've pointed to me to your "sources" which run into the very same problems I've already stated.
Pointing me towards more complex terminology only postpones the question, it doesn't answer it.
Do this quick test. For instance, we can easily predict things in physics and watch processes unfold in the natural world. Yet we can't do that with biology. Prove me wrong, tell me, how many changes does it take to go from a snake to a whale?
Of course snakes do not turn into whales in any chain of descent, but if we do know as much as you claim we do, then it should be a relatively easy question.
The engineers and physicists can give you exact numbers on how many changes it takes for anything to become anything else.
>intellectual honesty
It;s only for fools.
Go to bed, Richard. You're a washed up hack and biology will N E V E R actually be a hard science.
Please take a look at the data and then formulate your reply.
>>39595883
>Retards are evidence there is no god
>honestly takes away this asinine straw man from what I said
To clarify for you, as I said if you want to read it again, retardation is evidence against "anything resembling the Abrahamic god" since there are people born with impairments that would prevent them from being responsible moral agents. That doesn't mean other sorts of gods, like a Deistic one, couldn't still exist.
>tested, substantiated theory with proven predictability
Yup.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-theory-of-evolution-make-predictions-and-how-can-scientists-test-those-predictions
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_science.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkQzV20at8s
Not that hard to find if you're intellectually honest.
>Except, I said it's not demonstrating a sense of existential consciousness... which is correct as far as I know.
One of the specific things you asked for was the mirror test, which I showed you an animal example of right away. We already discussed determining the sapience of another animal, and you still haven't laid out a proper test for such a thing.
>I have to wonder, what ensures Evolutionary theory as being reliable? We don't really have a way to test if Birds come from Dinos.
Except yeah we do...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-7iXyYS0uw
>You clearly didn't examine my source and instead you've pointed to me to your "sources" which run into the very same problems I've already stated.
Your "source" doesn't address the legitimate sources I provided you, and you continuing to ignore them won't make them go away.
>we can easily predict things in physics and watch processes unfold in the natural world. Yet we can't do that with biology.
Yes, we can... Along with the mounting evidence I've already given you...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
>Please take a look at the data and then formulate your reply.
Projection: The Post
>>39596069
>a god implies everyone and everything is a moral agent
what the hell is wrong with you?
>abrahmaic god
that is an inherently deistic god.
Closer to deism than anything else at least.
>Yup
Nope.
please reference previous posts.
>predictability
>posits numerous transition fossils
>we find almost none
huh?
>except yeah we do
That pop-science vid just says "Scientists say birds are dinosaurs." It gives absolutely no insight into what actually happened in the transitional period.
You can't generalize millions of changes and then retain scientific integrity, it just doesn't work that way.
>legitimate sources I provided you
I've already given my criteria for what would satisfy me, you're just shotgunning because you have never challenged your own dogmatic orthodoxy.
>Yes, we can...
Your source had literally nothing to do with the criteria I've given.
Look, if those lizards are evolving at the rate of a million years per year, then they aren't actually evolving at the rate of a million years.
Could you source some actual data instead of The PR department of pop-science magazine?
You are the definition of a broken record. I am not going to keep replying until you give an answer to what I asked previously, this is what I need from you.
Let me say that again.
THIS >>39595883
>how many changes does it take to go from a snake to a whale?
WOULD SOLVE EVERYTHING.
That would demonstrate a sufficient understanding of Evolution within biology. No scientist has even attempted this. Yet its the one thing that would once and for all demonstrate Evolution to be a valid theory of explanation, at least valid in so far as the scientific realm is concerned.
>inb4 "evidence"
Please understand that "evidence" is not "data". Evidence isn't what you start with, it's a second level of analysis.
Observing creatures evolving isn't "evidence" it's data.
Get that straight and I think you'll unfuck your pursuit of source material.
Do you think a ghost would haunt a trailer
>>39594809
>I saw a dog ghost once.
Are you sure you weren't just imagining it?
>>39596369
>a god implies everyone and everything is a moral agent
Again with the straw man? No, ass burger, just humans, if you want to go with the Bible.
>the Abrahamic god is a deistic god
>being this retarded
A deistic god is non-interventionist, buddy...
>Nope. please reference previous posts.
Those posts have references in them...
>i-if I ignore him and keep asking for evidence even if he shows me some, I'll l-look like I'm winning, right?
>there are no transition fossils!
Literally every fossil is a transition fossil... Dumbass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&feature=related
>T-that vid just says scientists say so!
Yeah and I already gave you a massive database of credited evidence which addresses this entire subject, including birds from dinosaurs.
What, did you ignore the evidence I showed you? Rhetorical question.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06
>T-those lizards evolved by natural selection too quick to be used to validate the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection!
lol are you just actively trying to make me laugh now anon?
>You are the definition of a broken record.
Yup, I keep providing you with evidence and you keep conjuring up more and more pathetic reasons to disregard it. Isn't persistence frustrating?
>>how many changes does it take to go from a snake to a whale?
>No scientist has even attempted this.
>Asking scientists to literally count the number of generations between sufficiently varied populations
I'm afraid you're unironically autistic, anon.
>Observing creatures evolving isn't "evidence" it's data.
Mhmm, and evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact, supported by mountains of data I've provided you links to. Evolution by Natural Selection is the theory which explains that data and gives an accurate model from which we can and do make predictions.
Get that straight and you just might cure your abject ignorance.
>>39596573
couldn't you ask that of anyone who claimed they saw any kind of ghost?