This is true, and consciousness is therefore something science can investigate. But you should remember that consciousness is not the soul, and the soul is not a mere epiphenomenon of the mind.I already stated that consciousness required a nervous system to manifest itself
The system of Radioactive Dating has several flaws, which must be discussed, because if the actual system of dating is wrong, then the entirety of evolution is brought to it’s knees.
Sounds like a good start.Let us discuss then:
No. In fact, there are entire volumes dedicated to the various ways that the method can go wrong, and how contamination can occur. This is why only certain substances can be tested; we have to be sure that there was no such problem. This can be verified in various ways. Would you like to learn how?First, scientist assume that the radioactive substances have not suffered any contamination or leakage or evaporation or any other kind of spoiling or damaging factor that would make their accurate dating highly suspect.
Indeed, the sort of heat that occurs inside stars, or the kind of radiation around black holes can change the rate by a small degree. Of course, this would have vaporized the Earth, and/or fried all living things here, so we can be sure these conditions didn’t exist since the Earth solidified. And that is when the clock starts ticking for radioisotope dating.Second, scientist assume that the actual decay rates of these substances never vary, which is definitely a problem. Decay rates can vary if cosmic radiation varies. The DR can also vary because of supernova explosions.
Interestingly, scientists had a new way to calibrate Argon/Argon dating:Also, the ratio of 300-1 for Argon-40 is a problem too. Argon-36 and ratios of 36 and -36 are found on Venus and Mars.
Yep. I understand. But I reject the idea of God the deceiver.Consider this also, if evolution were NOT true, and God created everything nearly or completely instantly, if there was a HUGE oak tree in the Garden of Eden, and if that oak tree had 50 rings, people would think it was 50 years old right? Yeah, it’s wouldn’t be! It would be about 5 hours old! Understand now?
Modern evolutionary theory was first proposed by two Christians. Darwin, in his book attributed the origin of life to God. You’ve been badly misled.Two different things, evolutionist (who are mostly atheist, at least until Catholics started falling for it)
Barbarian, in your view,Again, we should steer clear of gnostic or functionalist ideas about consciousness.
Are you making the distinction between the sort of souls animals have and the immortal soul in humans? If so, then it follows that an immortal soul is not necessary for consciousness, since apes manifestly have consciousness.(1) Are consciousness and souls always interdependent categories, or are they entirely independent of each other?
If the soul is there at conception, then that is true, since there is no functional nervous system to have consciousness.(2) Can there be souls that never enjoy consciousness?
Except in the odd cases of two heads and one body, I don’t think so. But I don’t know.(3) Can there be more than one soul in a single body?
A bacterium adapts, to say resistance evolves adds a lot. Again MRSA is still staph aureus, it didn’t become streptococcus. When fourth generation fluoroquinolones were approved. There was some debate in eyecare whether to continue using earlier gen fluoroquins and save the new antibiotics for the more severe infections or instead just use the latest greatest in each case, wondering which would be best for preventing the development of resistance. I don’t know anyone who based their opinion and final clinical decision on the theory of evolution. My concern isn’t whether evolution is a good or a bad theory I just don’t see its value or necessity at this time. Perhaps i misunderstand your point.True, bacteria don’t have to accept evolutionary theory. But designing protocols for using antibiotics, to prevent the evolution of resistance does require evolutionary theory. That’s how we know how to do it.
There is a spectrum ranging from mildly conjoined twins to teratomas to tetragemtic chimeras. Do teratomas have immortal souls? If not, where is the dividing line between a body that has an immortal soul and one that does not?Except in the odd cases of two heads and one body, I don’t think so. But I don’t know.
No. If you learn nothing else about biology, get this: individuals do not evolve. Populations do.A bacterium adapts,
It’s directly observed. In fact, the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system was directly observed in bacteria.to say resistance evolves adds a lot.
**Predicting the evolution of antibiotic resistance genesI don’t know anyone who based their opinion and final clinical decision on the theory of evolution.
I’m astonished that they don’t teach pharmacists more of the biological basis for therapy.My concern isn’t whether evolution is a good or a bad theory I just don’t see its value or necessity at this time. Perhaps i misunderstand your point.
My goodness. None of them know the basis for antibiotic protocols? Astonishing. Perhaps it’s because doctors sometimes use “resistance” to mean “evolution of resistance.”I posed the question, What medical advances can you attribute to the study of evolution? to some people I know. You can add two RN’s and the PCP next door to me to the list with the aromatherapist for they couldn’t come up with any.
It’s been done, by a virus, suppressing a gene or genes. I apologize for the long quote, but I think you can see why it’s necessary here:Also as an aside, in a different post which may have been in this thread (though I am not absolutely certain) Someone mentioned how someone somewhere by suppressing a single gene was able to cause scales to form instead of feathers (or perhaps vice versa I can’t recall exactly as I was only skimming) on I would presume some type of bird. If anyone can direct me to a website or prof journal documenting the experiment I would appreciate it, or was this just a theoretical conclusion?
My logic escapes you? Referencing seminaries is bad start, many of them are places of corruption. Our Blessed Mother warned us that many seminaries are homes to Asmodeus and his like. Do you not think that the human element of the Church has been infiltrated by the enemy? Indeed it has, and our greatest comfort in this time of world evil, is the promise of Our Lord that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, for the Holy Father, no matter what sort of man he is, will never declare, from the Chair of Peter anything that is against the teachings of the Church.Your logic escapes me. How does reading parts of the Old Testament as mythology – which is mainstream scholarship in Catholic seminaries – reduce it to complete myth?
A deception to you, a light of truth for me. Evolution is the theory of the devil, and the more the world has slipped into Atheist and FALSE Christianity, the more evolution prospers.Yep. I understand. But I reject the idea of God the deceiver.
Modern evolutionary theory was first proposed by two Christians. Darwin, in his book attributed the origin of life to God. You’ve been badly misled.
Maybe it’s time to take a look and see what else you were taught that wasn’t so.
Our bodies are our way of interacting with the physical world. However, we do not need them to be aware. The souls of aborted children are most certainly aware after death.Are you making the distinction between the sort of souls animals have and the immortal soul in humans? If so, then it follows that an immortal soul is not necessary for consciousness, since apes manifestly have consciousness.
If the soul is there at conception, then that is true, since there is no functional nervous system to have consciousness.
By some estimates, between 50% and 80% of conceptions are naturally terminated, for genetic or other reasons. If souls are “inserted” (whatever that means) at conception, 50-80% of these souls never develop into embodied human persons.As all nature goes in cycles, I would say of God’s creation/insertion of an individual’s soul, s/he inserted the soul at conception, whether this be in the instance of first humans, or later, but the consciousness of this did not arise until all necessaary physical stimuli was in working order to bring about awareness of individuality.
(1) Yes – your logic escapes me indeed. Have you ever taken a scripture class on the university level?My logic escapes you? …
Man is separate from the animal, evolution tries to combine the two. …,
Evolution is highly dependent on the idea of “Good Mutations”. Yet, nearly EVERY mutation we see today is bad, a deformity, that kills. Something ugly and bad.
No, if consciousness itself is immaterial then, according to you, science cannot address it. It can address the brain and nervous system but not consciousness. It’s like the difference between a musical instrument and the music it produces: in this example science can address both because both are physical but no one would claim that evaluating the instrument is comparable to evaluating the music.Code:I already stated that consciousness required a nervous system to manifest itselfThis is true, and consciousness is therefore something science can investigate.
But you should remember that consciousness is not the soul, and the soul is not a mere epiphenomenon of the mind.
You’re a great one for decrying straw men even while building your own. I have never made any comments about God, the soul, or any religious belief on this thread.Again, we should steer clear of gnostic or functionalist ideas about consciousness.
To clarify I do know that individuals don’t evolve and that in theory populations do. Excuse my wording since it was about the 6th time I had to rewrite my response before it actually posted so pardon the poor wording(my usual absence of any proofreading). And no, just in case you were wondering, I don’t believe evolution teaches that we are evolved from monkeys either.No. If you learn nothing else about biology, get this: individuals do not evolve. Populations do.
It’s directly observed. In fact, the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system was directly observed in bacteria.
Abstract
Antibiotic resistance is thought to evolve rapidly in response to antibiotic use. At present, we lack effective tools to assess how rapidly existing resistance genes are likely to evolve to yield resistance to newly introduced drugs. To address this problem, a method has been developed for in vitro evolution experiments to help predict how long it will take antibiotic resistance to arise — potentially allowing informed decisions about usage to be made.
There are hundreds of studies like this. Every competent physician follows evolutionary theory in prescribing antibiotics. Some may just follow the protocols blindly, and be completely unaware of the basis for doing so. But it hardly matters so far as they follow the theory.
I’m astonished that they don’t teach pharmacists more of the biological basis for therapy.
My goodness. None of them know the basis for antibiotic protocols? Astonishing. Perhaps it’s because doctors sometimes use “resistance” to mean “evolution of resistance.”
My point (if there is one) is that the bacteria (colonies, population etc) in question though it develops this resistance does not necessarily become a new species.
Yes. That is what evolution does. If you’re hung up on the term, use Darwin’s preferred “descent with modification.”It only requires that the organism can adapt. (The population of organisms can adapt)
Humans are, after all, fond of sharing genes. We went through a bottleneck a few tens of thousands of years ago. So we’re one of the more homogenous species.Side by side Alaskan Inuit and African bushmen appear very different and have made a lot of adaptations but they are not two species they are still both equally human.
As you just learned, adaptation in a population is evolution.Their differing adaptations do not by themselves prove evolution.
To be precise, evolution was necessary to develop antibiotics. Evolutionary theory was necessary to prepare antibiotic protocols to delay the evolution of more antibiotic resistance.Evolution theory was not necessary in order to develop antibiotics.
It does in two ways. One, we can use evolutionary theory to limit the circumstances under which resistance is likely to evolve. And two, we can now predict with some accuracy the direction future resistance is likely to take in evolution.We know resistance occurs, and it is nice to have an experimental model to estimate how long before resistance is expected to develop but that does nothing to solve the problem.
It’s accurate. You want to deny evolution, so you found a synonym.So with or without evolution the outcome is the same, I say a population of bacteria can make adaptations, you say they evolve, that’s fine
That’s been directly observed. You seem to think that antibiotic resistance should always result in speciation. Strange idea.but it does not require by necessity that one species evolves into another.(nor does it necessarily mean they don’t)
Two points:I still believe that the proper use of antibiotics does not rely on the truth of evolutionary theory.
Just part of it. And it’s kind of a minor application, compared to agronomy or animal breeding, where it has had huge effects in improving the world food supply.Again I’m not saying that evolution is an unreasonable theory. I just don’t see in its full blown glory absolutely necessary in this instance.
Sounds like a testable claim. Which effective protocols did not use evolutionary theory?The concept of evolution is not necessary to develop these protocols
I think you have a visceral reaction against science, that prevents you from accepting this part of it. You are, I think, what used to be called a “paradoxer.”I ’m sure you will continue to disagree and feel I’m a mindless boob but that’s fine,
Maybe you’d be a more effective provider if you knew the basis of your protocols. Or maybe not. But the fact remains.In defense of myself and other clinicians … in clinical practice, in dealing with patients, evolutionary theory is not very often a topic of discussion, so perhaps I caught them off guard. I know myself that reading a professional journal on evolution is not going to help me in treating my glaucoma patients. And when new drugs or antibiotics come out we don’t go to lectures about evolutionary theory or the evolution of drug resistance we find out how the drug works what its useful for and how to deploy it in our practices to best treat our patients…
You could start here:Are there any other advances in medicine (or other )that you can give as an example brought about because of the study of evolution.
Someone’s had a little fun with your trust in them. No one uses radiocarbon dating for fossils. Too short a half-life to be useful.In one phrase it can be said that “those millions even billions of years simply don’t exist:” This is based on cutting edge research in radiocarbon dating of all fossils including dinosaur and diamond;
How do cataclysms mean a young earth? Since we have evidence that they have happened regularly over earth’s history, that seems like a pointless claim.cataclysms
There are some forming gradually near my home in a recently flooded lake. In geological terms, it will happen very quickly. You do know that there are varying rates of sedimentation, right?and polystrate fossil trees
Sounds interesting. How do craters rule out an old earth?[and craters on other planets/moons] and much more
Evolutionary theory isn’t about the origin of life from non-life. Wouldn’t you be more effective against science, if you knew what it was?(4) Sir, the clocks in the references you use to provide the long age deception that has confused ~12 to 40% of US population into believing macroevolution is a respectable theory of life from non-life needs a thorough cleaning.
Sounds interesting. Most of the “young magma” scams depend on using samples with unmelted xenocrysts. But give me your examples, and I’ll take a look.It can be argued from several points that radiocarbon dating of fossils are giving ages that are 4-10 time too old BUT not 50 to 50,000 times too old as does K/Ar etc. dating in differing situations regarding magma flows.
Nope. You just made that up.No, if consciousness itself is immaterial then, according to you, science cannot address it.
But evaluating behavior can indeed allow us to make inferences about consciousness. Science can study many immaterial things, so long as they are part of the physical universe. Hence, we can study beliefs and attitudes because they are behaviors of physical entities.It can address the brain and nervous system but not consciousness. It’s like the difference between a musical instrument and the music it produces: in this example science can address both because both are physical but no one would claim that evaluating the instrument is comparable to evaluating the music.
I didn’t say you did it. I’m merely pointing out that the assumptions you made can lead to such conclusions. If I meant you, I would have said you.You’re a great one for decrying straw men even while building your own. I have never made any comments about God, the soul, or any religious belief on this thread.
And what about the memory?? I am over 70 years old and I can remember things from my early childhood as though it was yesterday. I can still feel emotions, like joys, seeing the Rocky Mts. for the first time, 50 years ago and sorrows, like when my first husband died 40 years ago.If consciousness is not the result of physical processes but nonetheless exists it has a great deal to say about human evolution. It says that man is not the product of mere physical processes, as Darwinists like to imply.
Ender
Odd then, that two Christians first discovered it. And odd that Pope Benedict considers common descent to be virtually certain. But maybe you understand theology more fully than he does.A deception to you, a light of truth for me. Evolution is the theory of the devil, and the more the world has slipped into Atheist and FALSE Christianity, the more evolution prospers.
I hereby invoke Godwin’s law. I’m sure there have been some wonderfully good atheists. Don’t see a point, though.If I remember correctly, Hitler was a Catholic too.
On what basis do you make that assumption? And why not before death?Our bodies are our way of interacting with the physical world. However, we do not need them to be aware. The souls of aborted children are most certainly aware after death.
When Pope John Paul II declared in a public audience in 1990 that ‘also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren’ some people must have thought this was a new teaching, unaware of the Holy Father’s scholarly familiarity with the authentic Hebrew texts. When he went on to state that all animals are ‘fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect’ and that they are ‘as near to God as men are’, animal lovers in the audience were ecstatic! The Pope mentions the special relationship of mankind with God as being created in His image and likeness. ‘However,’ he goes on ‘other texts state that animals have the breath of life and were given it by God. In this respect, man, created by the hand of God, is identical with all other living creatures. And so in Psalm 104 there is no distinction between man and beasts when it reads, addressing God: " … Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth." The existence therefore,’ the Holy Father reminds us, 'of all living creatures depends on the living spirit/breath of God that not only creates but also sustains and renews the face of the earth.'And to my knowledge, animals do not have souls.
Nothing says it has to be continuously upward. In fact, there is no “upward” in evolution. Just more or less fit.What I find highly disturbing, is the undertone of a final evolved form. If man is evolving, then we are continually getting better, smarter, stronger, with better eyesight, hearing .ect. However, if we keep on evolving upwards, when will it end? Sounds frighteningly like Teilhard De Chardin’s ideas of the final evolution of everything so more then physical matter, and upward evolution.
Actually, most of them don’t do anything at all. You and I almost certainly have several.Evolution is highly dependent on the idea of “Good Mutations”. Yet, nearly EVERY mutation we see today is bad, a deformity, that kills. Something ugly and bad.