Evidence for God from Science

I think the best explanation is currently OEC, because the fossil evidence (that there is) for supposed macroevolution doesn't agree with DNA. Pretty much like the explanations given on this site.

SnowDrops wrote:I think the best explanation is currently OEC, because the fossil evidence (that there is) for supposed macroevolution doesn't agree with DNA. Pretty much like the explanations given on this site.

How does the fossil evidence not agree with the DNA? I mean, there are only a few places we even have ancient DNA, and I am not aware of much from say dinosaur times. Of course we have lots of modern DNA, but that is modern, if God changed it (by whatever means) well then it will not agree with older DNA (assuming we even have any older DNA). Or are you talking about modern DNA and then scientists making guesses on what that means about DNA in the past? Guesses like this are just that, guesses, unless we actually have some of that ancient DNA, that guess has not been verified.

My reasoning is like so:
Young earth creationism is out, ALL the evidence points clearly to an old earth, and since the bible does not demand a young earth, I must go with an old earth. It would also make God a liar if you say it is young “but with the appearance of age”, so that idea is shot down. If it looks old, it must be old.
The bible says God did it, but does not specify a method. There are then 3 possibilities:
1. Miracle, God breaks natural law and makes plants from nothing, God could certainly do this. The fossil record, however, does not support this idea, and the bible also mentions the creation of the various types of life in the same order we see in the fossil record, so that suggests strongly that the fossil record is mostly accurate. There is no particular reason to start with simple plants and go to complex ones if making them from nothing, if you are going to break natural law anyway, why not make it all at once, instead of sequentially? And why take so long, millions or billions of years, to do what you could do instantly?
2. A series of small miracles, God breaks natural law to do the small mutations to evolve life (the usual “theistic evolution” idea). If you are going to do it that way, however, why take so long to do it? And if you do it that way, why make critters, like dinosaurs, that all die out before mankind ever gets here? I mean, what’s the point, if you can use miracles, you could make any critter give birth to any other kind of critter, a lizard could give birth to a fully formed bird (including a chicken), that would mean there would be no need to go through a long series like the fossil record shows, bacterial (plant type) to simple marine life to invertebrates to land lizards to dinosaurs to birds to chicken. This idea simply doesn’t make logical sense.
3. A series of “natural miracles”, where God does it, but by NOT breaking natural laws. Such a method would take a long time, which we see, it would be sequential, which we see in the fossil record and Genesis, it would not be the most efficient method but it could work, which would mean that it could take a very long time to work, which we see, and it would result in some critters dying out, like dinosaurs, which we see. The bible says, about the first life mentioned, “let the earth”, which suggests an earthly, natural process, not a miracle. Finally, to do it without breaking natural law is not a non miracle, but instead actually a greater miracle, because it really is doing it the hard way, “following the rules” rather than “cheating”, which is vastly harder to do. Thus, if you say it seems easier and thus non godlike to do it by not breaking natural laws, that simply shows ignorance of how unbelievable hard it is to do it this way by a very long series of carefully planned out “coincidences” that stretch all the way back to the initial creation of this universe.

My conclusion is that option 3 is the only one that matches the bible, the evidence, and basic common sense.
I also see that the scientific evidence points to random chance not being able to pull off evolution, especially macro evolution, and especially the creation of life from non living matter, where random chance seems absolutely impossible. That only leaves non-random “chance”, or planned “coincidences”, an awful lot of them. It is possible for God to do this (although it would be a lengthy process even for God) and it matches the evidence.

So I would ask snowdrops, why do you believe in option 1, when the bible does not demand it, and neither the biblical nor the scientific evidence support it?

The only reason I can see to support option 1 is if you want to make it a miracle, to have more miracles. However, why have a miracle that no one ever saw, when you have the miracles of Jesus, witnessed by thousands? Are not the miracles of Jesus enough for you, why do you need more? How many miracles would be enough then?
And a quote about miracles: In a theistic universe, noting happens without a reason, miracles are intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities and are expressions of rational propose

but Leg, if god followed option 3 then why did he not (by your own theory) make man out of this way? Because when he wanted to make man, he most definately chose option 1 or 2. as in option 3, an ape would have to pop out adam. Am i correct to assume this is ur position? I know u dont believe that adam evolved. Then how do u explain this? Why would god break natural law this time. He should not since it would go against all evidence, as u base in ur theory.

Legatus wrote:

SnowDrops wrote:I think the best explanation is currently OEC, because the fossil evidence (that there is) for supposed macroevolution doesn't agree with DNA. Pretty much like the explanations given on this site.

How does the fossil evidence not agree with the DNA? I mean, there are only a few places we even have ancient DNA, and I am not aware of much from say dinosaur times. Of course we have lots of modern DNA, but that is modern, if God changed it (by whatever means) well then it will not agree with older DNA (assuming we even have any older DNA). Or are you talking about modern DNA and then scientists making guesses on what that means about DNA in the past? Guesses like this are just that, guesses, unless we actually have some of that ancient DNA, that guess has not been verified.

My reasoning is like so:
Young earth creationism is out, ALL the evidence points clearly to an old earth, and since the bible does not demand a young earth, I must go with an old earth. It would also make God a liar if you say it is young “but with the appearance of age”, so that idea is shot down. If it looks old, it must be old.
The bible says God did it, but does not specify a method. There are then 3 possibilities:
1. Miracle, God breaks natural law and makes plants from nothing, God could certainly do this. The fossil record, however, does not support this idea, and the bible also mentions the creation of the various types of life in the same order we see in the fossil record, so that suggests strongly that the fossil record is mostly accurate. There is no particular reason to start with simple plants and go to complex ones if making them from nothing, if you are going to break natural law anyway, why not make it all at once, instead of sequentially? And why take so long, millions or billions of years, to do what you could do instantly?
2. A series of small miracles, God breaks natural law to do the small mutations to evolve life (the usual “theistic evolution” idea). If you are going to do it that way, however, why take so long to do it? And if you do it that way, why make critters, like dinosaurs, that all die out before mankind ever gets here? I mean, what’s the point, if you can use miracles, you could make any critter give birth to any other kind of critter, a lizard could give birth to a fully formed bird (including a chicken), that would mean there would be no need to go through a long series like the fossil record shows, bacterial (plant type) to simple marine life to invertebrates to land lizards to dinosaurs to birds to chicken. This idea simply doesn’t make logical sense.
3. A series of “natural miracles”, where God does it, but by NOT breaking natural laws. Such a method would take a long time, which we see, it would be sequential, which we see in the fossil record and Genesis, it would not be the most efficient method but it could work, which would mean that it could take a very long time to work, which we see, and it would result in some critters dying out, like dinosaurs, which we see. The bible says, about the first life mentioned, “let the earth”, which suggests an earthly, natural process, not a miracle. Finally, to do it without breaking natural law is not a non miracle, but instead actually a greater miracle, because it really is doing it the hard way, “following the rules” rather than “cheating”, which is vastly harder to do. Thus, if you say it seems easier and thus non godlike to do it by not breaking natural laws, that simply shows ignorance of how unbelievable hard it is to do it this way by a very long series of carefully planned out “coincidences” that stretch all the way back to the initial creation of this universe.

My conclusion is that option 3 is the only one that matches the bible, the evidence, and basic common sense.
I also see that the scientific evidence points to random chance not being able to pull off evolution, especially macro evolution, and especially the creation of life from non living matter, where random chance seems absolutely impossible. That only leaves non-random “chance”, or planned “coincidences”, an awful lot of them. It is possible for God to do this (although it would be a lengthy process even for God) and it matches the evidence.

So I would ask snowdrops, why do you believe in option 1, when the bible does not demand it, and neither the biblical nor the scientific evidence support it?

The only reason I can see to support option 1 is if you want to make it a miracle, to have more miracles. However, why have a miracle that no one ever saw, when you have the miracles of Jesus, witnessed by thousands? Are not the miracles of Jesus enough for you, why do you need more? How many miracles would be enough then?
And a quote about miracles: In a theistic universe, noting happens without a reason, miracles are intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities and are expressions of rational propose

I think for the most part God didn't do anything, but He "inserted" different things at strategic positions to accomplish the result He wanted. Basically, I think macroevolution doesn't work and the evidence doesn't support it. It's not just unlikely, it's largely impossible through natural means.

SnowDrops wrote:I think for the most part God didn't do anything, but He "inserted" different things at strategic positions to accomplish the result He wanted. Basically, I think macroevolution doesn't work and the evidence doesn't support it. It's not just unlikely, it's largely impossible through natural means.

And what happens if it turned out to be true?

5. Have you tested your ideas against the the first two laws of Thermodynamics? since you are walking on new grounds and have a unique idea. Decay vs. progression?

6. Then there is the genesis order of the creation. Evolution says marine life was the first life that evolved, Genesis says it was the plants. Living creatures were created according to individual groups, and that thereafter, each reproduced after its own “kind” (Genesis 1:11-12,21,24-25). According to the evolutionary theory, all living organisms derive from a common primitive ancestor.

Theremodynamics only comes into it with evolution by random chance. Things can evolve UP IF a God of intelligence does it, random chance would not do it because of thermodynamics. Plus, thermodynamics can be locally gotten around, usefull energy is arriving at earth, mostly from the sun, all that is then needed is information. random chance does not convey information, just chaoes, decay, one CAN add information, however, if one has an intelligent source of it, say, God. One can then have order instrad of chaos, planned mutations instead of random harmfull decay producing ones.

Genesis says plants first, these were probably sea plants, like plankton, which are marine life (being single celled organisms, we really can''t find fossils of them). Genesis and science then says marine life of the animal kind, millions of trilobytes (half of all fossils are these). Genesis then says birds, right after marine life, it does not mention dinosaurs since most people throughout history would just say "huh, whats a dinosaur?", it says birds since that is what we know now and they were once some kind of dinosaur (and are pretty much all that is left of dino kind). It then says the mammels and suchlike non dinosaurs, that came next and then dinosaurs died out (planned, they would eat us otherwise), then mankind (specifying a special creation), and then God rested and stopped creating new critters. Since God is talking to people, he talkes of what he created FOR PEOPLE, he only mentions the forms of these things WE know, since they were created FOR US. Thus God says grass and trees, not mentioning (since most people would not understand anyway) that they may have started out billions of years ago as invisibly small planktion or other small "simple" (not really) single celled plants, or mentioning how long it took them to turn into what we know now, or going into any method used. For the later more complex critters, well, the method used or how long it took to get different kinds of critters that reproduce after their own kind is not specified, once God stopped with the mutating, "rested", well, since God is not changing them anymore, they will indeed reproduce only after their own kind, that was the plan.

Legatus, I see this as circular reasoning, for example, a primitive ancestor vs. all things created in their own kinds is a lot apart to just fuse it in like this.
The question is now not - if evolution happened by random chance - the question becomes, did evolution happen at each step, particularly for this?

Don't you see that if you accept that all life started from one primitive ancestor, than evolution happened and man doesn't need to come out of God's hand. As I said in my previous post, why evolution doesn't work in case of man, why even taking your scenario that a planned cosmic ray to do a precise mutation, which is not harmful, is used. why this is not used for man? I mean it will work perfectly won't it, since it is designed by an intelligent designer who has infinite knowledge and he knows what he is doing.

The idea lacks consistency and therefore makes the question more relevant then ever.

Legatus, I see this as circular reasoning, for example, a primitive ancestor vs. all things created in their own kinds is a lot apart to just fuse it in like this.
The question is now not - if evolution happened by random chance - the question becomes, did evolution happen at each step, particularly for this?

Don't you see that if you accept that all life started from one primitive ancestor, than evolution happened and man doesn't need to come out of God's hand. As I said in my previous post, why evolution doesn't work in case of man, why even taking your scenario that a planned cosmic ray to do a precise mutation, which is not harmful, is used. why this is not used for man? I mean it will work perfectly won't it, since it is designed by an intelligent designer who has infinite knowledge and he knows what he is doing.

The idea lacks consistency and therefore makes the question more relevant then ever.

First, I think even for God, doing it by natural means would mean that it would be a semi gradual process. It might simply not be possible for it to happen all at once, a lizard giving birth to a fully formed bird may simply be too many mutations to arrainge in one small time and place IF God chooses to do it without breaking natural laws. Sure, God could do it that way, IF God chooses to break natural laws, but if God does not than it may take a lot longer and be more gradual. Doing it this way is after all a lot more complicated and takes a lot more finess. Apperently, I have not been able to explain adequately how extremly complicated it is to arrainge for 1 in a zillion chance "coincidences" to happen in a specific planned order.one after another. I don't think it is something that can be done quickly.

That being the case, if God had wanted to evolve mankind from simpler creatures to more complex ones, without breaking natural laws, than that also would have taken a very long time. That would mean that mankind would have started out small brained and stupid. At exactly what point do you give man a soul? At exactly what point is man considered responsible for his behavior, such that he can go to heaven or hell? Is either going to be populated with small brained hominids? Thus God would want to go right to a big brained human to skip all that and make sure that Adam and Eve are fully as smart as we are and fully capable of a relationship with God, with a brain big enough to have free will because it is big enough to DECIDE (even about abstract concepts like good and evil and right and wrong). Thus God will not want to use a gradual process, but will have to do some other method, such as the specified method, fashion from clay or a rib, breath life into them. Also, they are special, they, unlike animals, are more than just a body, but also a spirit, designed to live with God forever. It should be no suprise that God would create such an immortal being differently than the other beings. Also, God would want us to know that, that we are different than animals, and thus would tell us that we were created differently to let us know that we were designed to be with God and interact with him in unique ways that animals cannot, to let us know that we have a soul and to act accordingly. Thus, as in the bible, God might even use a unique word, one not used for animals, like "fashioned", to show that we were not just another animal, but a unique creation with a unique realtionship to God and a unique resposibility to decide to have that relationship.

Also, realise that God does not have to conform to natural law, Jesus certainly broke them on accasion. However, for God to do it all may simply be...too easy. I mean, it's like cheating at a game, it's like that one Roman emporer who awarded himself a bunch of olympic medals without doing any olympics, there is simply no skill or art involved for God, no artistic satisfaction, from simply making stuff from nothing which takes God no effort in the slightest. To make a universe with complicated rules, and then to create life without breaking those rules, despite the fact that it is statistically impossible for it to happen by chance by a huge amount, takes real skill, something that even God might be proud to have pulled off. Think of it another way, we are running a road race, you are on foot, I have a fast car. If I beat you in the race a hundred times in a row, should I feel proud of myself, will I have a feeling of satisfaction, of accomplishment, or will it get boring after a while? Also, once again, why take millions and billions of years to do what God could do instantly?

Lastly, God did not consult with anyone or any animal on how they wanted to be created, or by what method. If God chooses to be "inconsistant", there is no one who can question him. If you insist on God being "consistant", you have to ask why God would take your opinion to account when HE decides how he wants to do it. God can do it any way he likes, and no one can ever question him.Dan 4:35 All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" Basically, God does not have to be "consistant" if he doesn't want to, if he wants to do one thing one way and another another, he can and will.. He may have reasons for doing it the way he did that we don't know and possibly can't know. He may also have simply wanted to show us that he is God and we are not. After all, we have tried for decades to make life in a test tube, and failed miserably (I don't even think we are any closer than we were 50 years ago).

I think for the most part God didn't do anything, but He "inserted" different things at strategic positions to accomplish the result He wanted. Basically, I think macroevolution doesn't work and the evidence doesn't support it. It's not just unlikely, it's largely impossible through natural means.

If you are going to Insert" things in at different times, why take millions of years to do it? You could do all that instantly, why take any time at all? I mean, I assume you are saying that God simply inserted fully formed animals created from nothing in at different times. Ok, why insert dinosaurs, when, by the time mankind comes along, all the dinosaurs are long dead and even their bones will not be discoverd untill recently? I mean, whats the point? And if you are going to "insert" stuff, why doesn't Genesis mention insertions?

"it's largely impossible through natural means" ,
Luke 1:37 For nothing is impossible with God."
Just because it is impossible for US does not mean it is impossible for God. God is not limited like us. Its time to not force God to be limited like us and insist that if we can't do it, God can't do it, by any means he chooses, and without obtaining permission from anyone or consulting anyone.

"The evidence doesn' support it" if it were done by limited creatures like US, thus WE think it is impossible.. Now, what if it is done by an unlimited God to whom it is possible ? Also, the evidence doesn't support it by random chance, what if it is not random? Just because some scientists insist there is no God, and thus no possible source of non random chance doesn't mean I have to.

I'm aware of it how God would want us to be a creation of his hand and not be evolved and I agree with it. The problem is that earlier you were theorizing that God goes with Natural law and that is why it is the only method true to the scriptures - and hence you quoted Romans 1:20 frequently.

My question was how do you fit is with consistency in your idea, which is unique to you (as you say). but I think you make an exception to your own theory here and go complete opposite of it in this particular instance of man's creation.

That being the case, if God had wanted to evolve mankind from simpler creatures to more complex ones, without breaking natural laws, than that also would have taken a very long time. That would mean that mankind would have started out small brained and stupid. At exactly what point do you give man a soul?

I thought a being of infinite knowledge would know how to decide that, since that is the very premise of the case you build. If everything is planned then God can do it certainly, you can't suggest God can't do it, he can if he chooses to. if He can make a donkey talk then how do we know he can't do give someone a soul.

Thus God would want to go right to a big brained human to skip all that and make sure that Adam and Eve are fully as smart as we are and fully capable of a relationship with God, with a brain big enough to have free will because it is big enough to DECIDE (even about abstract concepts like good and evil and right and wrong). Thus God will not want to use a gradual process, but will have to do some other method, such as the specified method, fashion from clay or a rib, breath life into them. Also, they are special, they, unlike animals, are more than just a body, but also a spirit, designed to live with God forever. It should be no suprise that God would create such an immortal being differently than the other beings.

I see you point, though on a general note I think one can be with God without the knowledge of Good and evil as were Adam and eve in the beginning and also like wise the animals also know their creator and obey him. So brain is truly not a very good argument to say that God had to create us other than evolution. Even if it takes billions of years, it would still work out eventually, because it is not random, as you say, it is planned.

Also, realise that God does not have to conform to natural law, Jesus certainly broke them on accasion. However, for God to do it all may simply be...too easy.

Yes, very true indeed. But how would we know that it didn't happen before the creation of Adam. As you describe that before Adam God could only go with natural law and only here did he not follow it. You do realize that the reason I make this point is to show why I called it circular reasoning because there is no definitive pattern, God does something according to a fundamental idea of your belief and then later he doesn't because that is part of your belief as well. Not that I have anything against it, just asking because you seemed pretty adamant upon your position on "Natural Law" by means of Rom 1:20 on this and yet in this case you don't believe it, more, you don't think it can happen either.

Lastly, God did not consult with anyone or any animal on how they wanted to be created, or by what method...He may also have simply wanted to show us that he is God and we are not.

True, agreed.

After all, we have tried for decades to make life in a test tube, and failed miserably (I don't even think we are any closer than we were 50 years ago).

We probably will, so I'm not gonna think that this is something unique for realizing the authority of God. That stands regardless of this.

I'm aware of it how God would want us to be a creation of his hand and not be evolved and I agree with it. The problem is that earlier you were theorizing that God goes with Natural law and that is why it is the only method true to the scriptures - and hence you quoted Romans 1:20 frequently.

I am not theorizing that God goes with natural law as "the only method true to the scriptures", only the only method true to THIS ONE VERSE Gen 1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. Clearly, Jesus did not go with natural law when he walked on water, however, that was an exception, and it was ment to be an exception, to show everyone that Jesus was different than all this other stuff we see every day. Two quotes :In a theistic universe, noting happens without a reason, miracles are intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities and are expressions of rational propose
That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce what we call miracles, is part of the Christian faith; but the very concept of a common and therefore stable world demands that these occasions should be extremely rare.”

In this one verse Gen 1:11, God does NOT say "and God created vegetation", that is what it WOULD say IF God chose to make it from nothing, but it does not. Instead, it says God SAID (conveyed information) "let the land produce". This clearly indicates that, first, it was not so much of a doing as a saying, a conveying of information, like, say, the information of exactly where and how a cosmic ray might strike to make a series of desired mutations not possible by random chance. It also says "let the land", this indicates that the land was to do it, NOT that God did it directly, yet also, since it only happened after God said it should, it is doing so at Gods direction, using the information God converyed to it in his prior saying . Therefore, we see that God di it here, but indirectly, not directly, otherwise he would have said it differently. Also, God also 'said" let the land" (or water) in the following verses, about sea and land creatures, so I must say that this is also done indirectly, by God, at Gods direction, but indirectly (as far as anything in a universe created and maintained soley by God can be said to be indirectly).

For Adam and Eve, God said Gen 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. and
Gen 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. In this place, the word "formed" (or fashioned") is used, indicating a direct action of God, not a saying, not "let the earth", but God doing it directly. God specifically used a word, 'formed" here which was NOT used in the first chapter about the other life, clearly indicating that God did it differently here. If God had done it the same both places, he would have used "formed" in the first chapter as well, he did not.

Thus, if I say the first, vegetation, is indirect, the land did it at Gods' direction, and the second, Adam and Eve, is direct, God formed them himself, how am I doing anything else but saying what the bible clearly says? How is it "circular logic" to simply say what the bible itself says? And where am I saying that all of scripture says this, and then changing my mind? I only "change my mind" when presented with the EVIDENCE of the second chapter, where a different description, "formed" is clearly stated. If the first chapter says one thing, and the second says another, as they do, should I insist that both are the same, be "consistant", despite what they actually say?

I thought a being of infinite knowledge would know how to decide that, since that is the very premise of the case you build. If everything is planned then God can do it certainly, you can't suggest God can't do it, he can if he chooses to. if He can make a donkey talk then how do we know he can't do give someone a soul.

First, he can talk through a donkey, that doesnt mean the donkey suddenly became a sentiant being capable of speach, if it was, it would need a much bigger head, with a much bigger brain in it, and proper vocal cords etc, and it would thus becoime something other than a donkey.

I don't think you understand what a soul is. A soul is your "you-ness", your personality, your will. To have a soul, you must be sentient, you must know that you are you, and be able to decide what you will beleive and do. To be sentient requires some means of thinking complex thoughts, like a large bain designed to do just that. Animals do not have that, they cannot really beleive or decide anything other than what they are designed to do, they cannot, for instance, decide between good or evil, since they know nothing of either. A spirit, however, is another thing, and I think that when you think "soul" you are really thinking "spirit". A spirit is some sort of non physical vehicle for sentient intelligence, God is a spirit, angles are spirits, and people have both bodies with big brains AND a spirit. Both a big brain OR a spirit can be a vehicle for a "soul", a sentience being like a person or God. However, a SMALL brain is not big enough to hold sentience, small brained animals are not sentient. While on earth, God seems to want us to use our physical brains, rather than our spirits, to do our thinking. I beleive that this is because, being physical, it is subject to time. because it is subject to time, it can change in time, we can become different people by an act of our will (helped by Gods influence), and thus we can change and grow in time to become what God wants us to be. Angels, being pure spirits, and thus outside of time, have a harder time changing and growing, for instance once an angle becomes evil, they stay that way from then on. Thus, God wants us to be, for now, physical, thus time bound, thus capable of change, in this case from evil to good. Thus, for now, while we are alive, we must have physical brains big enough to be sentient and to be able to choose or reject God and good. Thus, a small brain hominide just doesn't cut it, not big enough brained to be truely sentient, but too big to be just an animal. Thus, God skips any such evolutionary step (assuming it is even possible to evolve to sentience) and creates big brained actual sentient and thus soulish humans, sentient and thus he can also give us a spirit which we will only use for thinking after we have left this time bound universe and changed the way God wishes us to, and become what God wishes us to become before we meet God as spirits in heaven. We must use our timebound and thus more changeable than a pure spirits intelligence to grow because, for one reason 1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! If we are to judge angels, we must eventually grow beyond them in some ways, and to do that, we must do some of that growing here, as physical time bound beings capable of growth and change.

First, he can talk through a donkey, that doesnt mean the donkey suddenly became a sentiant being capable of speach, if it was, it would need a much bigger head, with a much bigger brain in it, and proper vocal cords etc, and it would thus becoime something other than a donkey.

You mean God was talking through the Donkey? and it was not the donkey talking? Did God possessed the donkey and then talked through him? My understanding is that the Donkey talked on its on behalf, not God. I'm not sure of your interpretation of the scriptures here.

I don't think you understand what a soul is. A soul is your "you-ness", your personality, your will. To have a soul, you must be sentient, you must know that you are you, and be able to decide what you will beleive and do. To be sentient requires some means of thinking complex thoughts, like a large bain designed to do just that. Animals do not have that, they cannot really beleive or decide anything other than what they are designed to do, they cannot, for instance, decide between good or evil, since they know nothing of either. A spirit, however, is another thing, and I think that when you think "soul" you are really thinking "spirit". A spirit is some sort of non physical vehicle for sentient intelligence, God is a spirit, angles are spirits, and people have both bodies with big brains AND a spirit. Both a big brain OR a spirit can be a vehicle for a "soul", a sentience being like a person or God. However, a SMALL brain is not big enough to hold sentience, small brained animals are not sentient. While on earth, God seems to want us to use our physical brains, rather than our spirits, to do our thinking. I beleive that this is because, being physical, it is subject to time. because it is subject to time, it can change in time, we can become different people by an act of our will (helped by Gods influence), and thus we can change and grow in time to become what God wants us to be. Angels, being pure spirits, and thus outside of time, have a harder time changing and growing, for instance once an angle becomes evil, they stay that way from then on. Thus, God wants us to be, for now, physical, thus time bound, thus capable of change, in this case from evil to good. Thus, for now, while we are alive, we must have physical brains big enough to be sentient and to be able to choose or reject God and good. Thus, a small brain hominide just doesn't cut it, not big enough brained to be truely sentient, but too big to be just an animal.

First, i don't think there is one definition of soul, but to put it point black "soul" isn't "your-ness" that is called personality. And where does it say that soul means "sentient intelligence"? Spirit is a different body unlike ours, and yes it is not bound by our physical laws. So you think only sentient beings carry soul and spirit and no one else? In describing the time of creation, the terms "living creature" for animals and "living soul" for humans are English translations of the very same original Hebrew words, kaw-ee, meaning alive (translated as "living" in "living creature" for animals and "living soul" for humans), and neh-fesh, meaning a breathing creature (alternately translated as "creature" and "soul" in "living creature" for animals and "living soul" for humans).

In Genesis 1:20, 24 (NIV) the Creator calls for the water and the land to bring forth “living creatures.” The Hebrew words for this expression are nephesh chay. The term chay is derived from chayah, a root word meaning “to live.” The term nephesh is from the root word that means “to breathe,” and it is translated throughout the OT as “soul.” The King James Version of the Bible translates the expression nephesh chay as “moving creatures that hath life.” The NIV, on the other hand, avoids this dichotomy by translating both uses of the expression as “living creature.”

In Deuteronomy 12:23 the word nephesh is used to explain why blood should not be eaten with the meat: “But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life (nephesh) and you must not eat the life with the meat” (NIV). This is echoed in Lev. 17:11 and other passages regarding the levitical laws. This would appear to give nephesh a material meaning. So in one instance it seems to be more non-material as the “soul” and in another instance it seems to be material.

In the account of the Flood it speaks of the destruction “of every creature that hath the breath of life (ruwach) in it” (Gen. 6:17 NIV). The Hebrew term ruwach is usually translated as “spirit” in most other OT passages where it is used. This word is used in Ecclesiastes 3:21 to refer to both the “spirit” of people and the “spirit” of animals. So it appears that even “spirit” can be attributed to both animals and mankind. The actual Hebrew meaning of ruwach is also “to breathe” or “exhale.”

So the two words that are variously translated “soul” and “spirit” actually have a similar meaning. This no doubt adds to the controversy

Psalm (104) NIV
27 All creatures look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.
29 When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
30 When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.

Ecclesiastes 3:21
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

(Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 KJV)
"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

The actual Bible word translated as "spirit" in the "spirit of man" and the "spirit of the beast" in the verse above is the Hebrew word (pronounced) roo-ackh which simply means breath, or to exhale. The "last breath" is what is being described as "spirit" in these verses.

I think what really separates us is that we are more intelligent and are made in the image of God, but being intelligent doesn't mean we exclusively have souls or spirits.

Whales communicate through sound, they obviously have a language to communicate, it is not as our language, same is the case with chimps & dolphins. They make sounds. they have vocal chords, not like ours but then they are not talking to us. There is ample proof of animal communication and intelligence not of our level but still that is no point to argue they don't have souls or spirits.