A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2012, 04:42 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 01:42 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  What makes humans special is that we have evolved to consciousness.

Okay, so define and explain this "consciousness" you speak of.

Why is it that of the many "animals" on this planet, only man has "evolved" to a state of consciousness?



(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  We are (apparently) the only species to be able to reflect on our existence, to use our minds to construct alternative realities, and so on.

So you are saying that we actively use our minds, right? So do animals. Animals can show emotion, care for their young, change their behavior based upon experience.

But it is significant that man can "construct alternative realities?"

I agree. I view the evolution theory to be just such a construct. Wink

So where do you stand on dualism, either that theorized by philosophers or that embraced by theologians? I would guess that when the body dies, the person, the consciousness of the person dies as well, right? Which means, though the evolved state may be at a greater level, we are talking about the same thing. A man is no different than an animal.

Right?

So following this train of reasoning we can theorize that given enough time, we will see animals evolve similarly. If the one be true, the other is a likely outcome. Which means that we are eating the forefathers of of future equals on a daily basis. How horrible! Doesn't that make us...like animals or something?

(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  This does not make us divinely created.

This is your theory?

(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Our evolutionary past is clearly spelled out in the genetic evidence, no gods need apply.

Correction: the interpretations of the genetic evidence of men that align with your belief system teach this.

I admit that I am pretty ignorant in this area, so have fun with it: what I have seen as claims of "new genetic material" seems to be to be a little deceiving. Replication and duplication is a far cry from something being new, such as the instance of animals gaining a new function, namely...consciousness (in the sense you yourself describe above).

While I say this, I do have to mention that this concept is, in my estimation, similar to the difference between things spiritual and physical. If you will just humor me for a bit, and consider the difference between an animal having "no conscience" and man having a conscious element to represent a similar concept as is proposed in the term "new." So for the theistic evolutionist it would be plausible that man was made "new" when he came to the point where he had something that animals do not, which sets him apart from the make-up of animals. One problem associated with that is that science can neither affirm or deny it's own theories, in relation to dualism.

If there were truly "new genetic material" it would seem to me that this would be front page news. But I have only seen "newly observed material," which is quite different. Just like a newly observed is quite different from a species that is new.

(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Many people are horrified by the idea that we are not specially created and become blinded to the evidence.

And some of us are just waiting for science to catch up to that which scripture teaches. Perhaps one day science will be able to monitor the "consciousness" which you mention, and then again, perhaps not.

GTY
Dualism is a myth. Our minds are emergent from our brains. When we die, it's all over.

Animals appear to have varying levels of intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness. There is a continuum from robotic to fully conscious. Apes, elephants, dogs, and dolphins, for example, have some level of self-awareness.

There is no reason to believe that other animals will or will not evolve human-like consciousness. It could happen or not.

The genetic evidence is hardly 'interpreted'. There is a common chemical code across all of life. There are even genes that we share with plants.

But if you want to argue about evolution and genetics, you will need to learn more about it. Denying the evidence without even understanding it is not rational.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
15-06-2012, 04:54 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 03:30 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I really can't get past this statement - "And some of us are just waiting for science to catch up to that which scripture teaches"

How do we catch up? Cure disease by animal sacrifice? There is nothing in the bible that the people of the time could not know or have made up and quite a bit they got wrong.
iam4



That's the fulfilled prophecy of the whole "Holy Bible." Fuckers. But I wuz just arguing pure number over string theory, which starts with the tao and gets a kick from Ezekiel. I mean, scripture ain't worthless. It is the most successful form of human technology, but the whole thing fits into iam4.

So it ain't worth this paragraph. E=mc^2 don't communicate anything without the background. Communicating here is no more than war. To paint a banner with one equation in blue, one in red; decide who's right by determining who's left. Like evolution dictates. Buncha theists forget what this prophet remembers. I am more than the sum of my parts. At the same time, I am far less. There's an animal in me that breathes and eats and shops at the grocery store. An animal that knows how to send blood from my toes to keep my mind fed and free from everything around me.

To dissolve into pure mind is to let the animal that don't know devour the world for my Gwynnies. It's evolutionary imperative.

Yet the Bible teaches... revelation. Dodgy

Motherfuckers weren't supposed to have a Bible. Motherfuckers supposed to have prophets. But instead they had priests, lawyers; bickering over the word of the law because they could not market the spirit. NASB over KJV, a marketing dispute; blue over red. Because the marketing strategy preserves power over the people. The spirit preserves the power over the self. Self-control? Priests? Can't have that!

Instead we have this.

What has come between us atheists and theists is not Almighty but less than iam4. If you don't understand that, your jihad is mere crusade.

There is actually some great statements in here, like this, for example:


Quote:E=mc^2 don't communicate anything without the background.


How true. Now apply that to scripture and we will be on the same page concerning approach, though we may be landing in different airfields.

Quote:To dissolve into pure mind is to let the animal that don't know devour the world for my Gwynnies. It's evolutionary imperative.


Then there are times when we need not be rational? Just let emotion or instinct lead the way?


Quote:weren't supposed to have a Bible. supposed to have prophets. But instead they had priests, lawyers; bickering over the word of the law because they could not market the spirit.


The Levitical Priesthood was divinely ordered, not, like the priesthood of Catholicism, an organization of man's design. And while like the Catholic priesthood, there was one major problem, that being men were involved, there were still men found in the Priesthood who served with sincere hearts.

And the oracles of God were given to Israel, it is quite clear that they were supposed to have the word of God.

Quote:NASB over KJV, a marketing dispute; blue over red. Because the marketing strategy preserves power over the people.

I have tried to clarify that for myself: there is no dispute from my end. I am not a part of "Onlyist" camps, and I do not seek to impress people that there is a particular translation they should read. I will take a spirit-filled man's preaching from a paraphrase over a natural scholar's incapable lectures...any day.

But that is the power of God, to use weak things to confound the strong, and...dummies to confound the intellectual.

Look, its been fun, but have to get going. Watch that blood pressure my friend, need to keep the blood flowing to the toes fer sure (neat trick by the way), but let's not overdo it, dude.

(and you know I am just playing with you, house Big Grin )

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 04:57 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 04:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 01:42 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Okay, so define and explain this "consciousness" you speak of.

Why is it that of the many "animals" on this planet, only man has "evolved" to a state of consciousness?




So you are saying that we actively use our minds, right? So do animals. Animals can show emotion, care for their young, change their behavior based upon experience.

But it is significant that man can "construct alternative realities?"

I agree. I view the evolution theory to be just such a construct. Wink

So where do you stand on dualism, either that theorized by philosophers or that embraced by theologians? I would guess that when the body dies, the person, the consciousness of the person dies as well, right? Which means, though the evolved state may be at a greater level, we are talking about the same thing. A man is no different than an animal.

Right?

So following this train of reasoning we can theorize that given enough time, we will see animals evolve similarly. If the one be true, the other is a likely outcome. Which means that we are eating the forefathers of of future equals on a daily basis. How horrible! Doesn't that make us...like animals or something?


This is your theory?


Correction: the interpretations of the genetic evidence of men that align with your belief system teach this.

I admit that I am pretty ignorant in this area, so have fun with it: what I have seen as claims of "new genetic material" seems to be to be a little deceiving. Replication and duplication is a far cry from something being new, such as the instance of animals gaining a new function, namely...consciousness (in the sense you yourself describe above).

While I say this, I do have to mention that this concept is, in my estimation, similar to the difference between things spiritual and physical. If you will just humor me for a bit, and consider the difference between an animal having "no conscience" and man having a conscious element to represent a similar concept as is proposed in the term "new." So for the theistic evolutionist it would be plausible that man was made "new" when he came to the point where he had something that animals do not, which sets him apart from the make-up of animals. One problem associated with that is that science can neither affirm or deny it's own theories, in relation to dualism.

If there were truly "new genetic material" it would seem to me that this would be front page news. But I have only seen "newly observed material," which is quite different. Just like a newly observed is quite different from a species that is new.


And some of us are just waiting for science to catch up to that which scripture teaches. Perhaps one day science will be able to monitor the "consciousness" which you mention, and then again, perhaps not.

GTY
Dualism is a myth. Our minds are emergent from our brains. When we die, it's all over.

Animals appear to have varying levels of intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness. There is a continuum from robotic to fully conscious. Apes, elephants, dogs, and dolphins, for example, have some level of self-awareness.

There is no reason to believe that other animals will or will not evolve human-like consciousness. It could happen or not.

The genetic evidence is hardly 'interpreted'. There is a common chemical code across all of life. There are even genes that we share with plants.

But if you want to argue about evolution and genetics, you will need to learn more about it. Denying the evidence without even understanding it is not rational.

So present the evidence.

Have to get going, so, my sanity will have to be examined at a later time, but, this should be easy for you, as I am pretty ignorant. Present the "new genetic material" and I will take a look at your proof.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 05:02 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 04:57 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 04:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Dualism is a myth. Our minds are emergent from our brains. When we die, it's all over.

Animals appear to have varying levels of intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness. There is a continuum from robotic to fully conscious. Apes, elephants, dogs, and dolphins, for example, have some level of self-awareness.

There is no reason to believe that other animals will or will not evolve human-like consciousness. It could happen or not.

The genetic evidence is hardly 'interpreted'. There is a common chemical code across all of life. There are even genes that we share with plants.

But if you want to argue about evolution and genetics, you will need to learn more about it. Denying the evidence without even understanding it is not rational.

So present the evidence.

Have to get going, so, my sanity will have to be examined at a later time, but, this should be easy for you, as I am pretty ignorant. Present the "new genetic material" and I will take a look at your proof.

GTY
Mutations create new genetic material and natural selection provides the test.

There are books that describe evolution and its evidence; I am not prepared to write you a book. Search Amazon.com for 'evolution'. I suggest you try reading a couple of them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 05:18 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 04:57 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  So present the evidence.

Have to get going, so, my sanity will have to be examined at a later time, but, this should be easy for you, as I am pretty ignorant. Present the "new genetic material" and I will take a look at your proof.

GTY
Mutations create new genetic material and natural selection provides the test.

There are books that describe evolution and its evidence; I am not prepared to write you a book. Search Amazon.com for 'evolution'. I suggest you try reading a couple of them.

So you choose to verify my suggestion that most people that embrace certain religions and belief systems believe what they believe based upon what they are taught, rather than their own work.

But I am not surprised. A bit of a double standard, though. Mock believers because they cannot produce evidence or proof to substantiate their beliefs, then do exactly what they do. Just keep that in mind when you do it.

Though I would also include this aspect: most believers will not take the time because of the attitudes towards others.

Where's the compassion, bro? Don't you care that I have been deceived by the horrors of religion? Don't you want to save me from it? Teach why I must come to my senses and embrace atheism?

Okay, being a little facetious here, but hopefully you get my point.

By the way, mutation, replication, and adaptation I find perfectly reasonable, but I do not see this as new material, simply a restructuring of already existing building blocks. A baby would be considered new material by that definition, wouldn't it? But if a baby is born with wings, now that would impress me (as well as the National Enquirer). But if you force a village to live in trees for a century...will they grow wings? That is the proof I am asking for. So, as I said, present the proof.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 05:36 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2012 05:42 PM by Chas.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Quote:So you choose to verify my suggestion that most people that embrace
certain religions and belief systems believe what they believe based
upon what they are taught, rather than their own work.

But I am not surprised. A bit of a double standard, though. Mock
believers because they cannot produce evidence or proof to substantiate
their beliefs, then do exactly what they do. Just keep that in mind when
you do it.
No, the difference is that the scientific results are from replicable results. I can do the experiments, the calculations. Furthermore, they are described in detail. I am not accepting someone's 'revelation'.

Quote:Where's the compassion, bro? Don't you care that I have been deceived by
the horrors of religion? Don't you want to save me from it? Teach why I
must come to my senses and embrace atheism?

Okay, being a little facetious here, but hopefully you get my point.
I don't get your point. I care deeply that you believe without evidence, that you are gullible. I think that if you learn about evolution it will help you.

Quote:By the way, mutation, replication, and adaptation I find perfectly
reasonable, but I do not see this as new material, simply a
restructuring of already existing building blocks. A baby would be
considered new material by that definition, wouldn't it? But if a baby
is born with wings, now that would impress me (as well as the National
Enquirer). But if you force a village to live in trees for a
century...will they grow wings? That is the proof I am asking for. So,
as I said, present the proof.
Mutations are new material. These may be codes that never before existed. A baby is typically a new combination of genetic material. If there were mutations in the germ cell from either parent, that would potentially be new material.

Evolution occurs by incremental small changes - not by saltations, e.g. a human with wings. Really, you need to have a better understanding of genetics and evolution before you can criticize, ridicule, or dismiss them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 07:06 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
ST, you're response to my second post was of a totally different feel from the response to my first post. Tongue

Western prophetic tradition sums to iam4 - we seem to have no probs there - but the Eastern tradition of void seems to provoke a shutdown of communication.

And prophets don't convert, knucklehead. Prophets got Holy Spirit. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 07:42 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:So you choose to verify my suggestion that most people that embrace
certain religions and belief systems believe what they believe based
upon what they are taught, rather than their own work.

But I am not surprised. A bit of a double standard, though. Mock
believers because they cannot produce evidence or proof to substantiate
their beliefs, then do exactly what they do. Just keep that in mind when
you do it.
No, the difference is that the scientific results are from replicable results.

Okay, Chas, you will need to be patient with me, as I do not profess to know too much about this, so, my challenge to you is twofold: if you are convinced that I am gullible and believe without any kind of evidence, I am more than glad to hear you teach me that which is supposed to be so evident; you will need to present the basis of your belief, even as when I discuss doctrine with someone I present the scriptural evidence for examination.

Now then, I will try to respond to this post.

In response to this, I will just say that if replicable results are a good indication of the veracity of a belief, could we not say that the claims of scripture, which constantly, from generation to generation, produce changed lives...be a good indication that what is taught in scripture is true? And be fair about this.

Also, in line with previous discussion, if there are multiple accounts of existance after the pronouncement of death, to the point where scientific process is forced to make this conclusion, might there not be something in that as well? To indicate life after death?

(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  I can do the experiments, the calculations.

But...do you? Have you yourself done the research? And if you have, would ou say that before hands on experience occurred, the teaching you received before that research played absolutely no factor in how you interpreted the results. I ask this because there are two sides here. Are the scientists that view the evidence, the results, as indicating creation rather than evolution (and I am not referring to all aspects or conclusions in the field of study), all just stupid? Without integrity? Part of a grand conspiracy to propogate religion?

(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Furthermore, they are described in detail. I am not accepting someone's 'revelation'.

I would agree with the difference between scientific results and revelation.

So again, is it hands on? Or are you just certain that the men that have come to these conclusions are above reproach? As for me, while I expect or hope for the best with all those I deal with, I do not underestimate man's potential for dishonesty, especially when it comes to a subject that has ramifications such as this one has.

(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Where's the compassion, bro? Don't you care that I have been deceived by
the horrors of religion? Don't you want to save me from it? Teach why I
must come to my senses and embrace atheism?

Okay, being a little facetious here, but hopefully you get my point.
I don't get your point. I care deeply that you believe without evidence, that you are gullible. I think that if you learn about evolution it will help you.

You say I believe without evidence, but have you done research on this? And it is not a matter of "We can't do research on something that doesn't exist," for, if that were the case, we would still be ignorant of atomic structure, right?

One of the things that I do question here is the claim of those here that say "I was a Christian but now I am not." A simple experiment is always to simply attend a fellowship for a while. This will only be sincere if the person has an honest desire if in fact the word of God can change a heart. Mnay say, "I was a member of the Church for years," only to be follwed by comments such as "But I never really bought into it." And my suggestion is simply, does this not prove that you were not a Christian to begin with?

So I ask if you have put God to the test in this manner, and if you would at least admit that if someone simply takes the word of another, they cannot for themselves say that the evidence is completely trustworthy?

(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:By the way, mutation, replication, and adaptation I find perfectly
reasonable, but I do not see this as new material, simply a
restructuring of already existing building blocks. A baby would be
considered new material by that definition, wouldn't it? But if a baby
is born with wings, now that would impress me (as well as the National
Enquirer). But if you force a village to live in trees for a
century...will they grow wings? That is the proof I am asking for. So,
as I said, present the proof.
Mutations are new material.

So we have brand new matter in this world when this occurs? That is what I am talking about. We (and I should probably say I) believe that God created the universe...out of nothing. It is one thing for a species to adapt such as our family living in the trees, but I would expect to see a physical change without them actually becoming a new species. Again, bear with me, I look forward to your replies, and have no problem admitting ignorance.

If a previously existing material mutates, does this really constitute a belief that mutations will lead to the creation of a new species, as is proposed by evolution? Will man eventually evolve again, and become a different species? Is it possible that given enough time and the right conditions, could he grow wings? Might he grow a tail again?

If you could, present mutation for my consideration. I would be glad to look at it.

(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  These may be codes that never before existed.

When you say "may" does that mean it is theoretical? Just asking, trying to be as least a jerk as I can...lol.

(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  A baby is typically a new combination of genetic material.

But the mutation is not? Please explain.

(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  If there were mutations in the germ cell from either parent, that would potentially be new material.

By "potentially" is this, again, theoretical? If this is something that has shaped our existance, would we not have evidence of this?

(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Evolution occurs by incremental small changes - not by saltations, e.g. a human with wings.

I understand that, that was just an example.

So do we look at mutation as evidence for evolution, rather than view it as a changing of existing material? I mean, last I heard, life evolved from single cell creatures (you see I told you I was ignorant...lol, I guess I put about as much into this as some put into bible study), and we would expect that if this is even remotely true, we have to to embrace the idea that one creature becomes an entirely different creature. And if this is true, we should see this still happening. That is what I would like to see.

(15-06-2012 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Really, you need to have a better understanding of genetics and evolution before you can criticize, ridicule, or dismiss them.

This I know. I don't criticize, ridicule, or dismiss your beliefs, Chas, it is just a matter of every time I do look at the evidence, it is like hitting a brick wall. I see nothing that would lead me to view the changes we see in nature to be anything other than a species adapting to its environment. We can see this is just a few generations in people, and in less time with animals or reptiles. I saw a show where a guy said we were seeing evolution in progress because a snake on an island was a different color than the one on the mainland. Stuff like that seems as silly to me as the flood may seem to you.

So, if you can have patience, there really is a desire on my part to examine the basis of your belief, and I am willing to look at the evidence. However, just as I would not tell a new believer, "Hey, there are libraries and youtube videos you can learn from, " as there is a lot of bad information out there, and while I believe that God will lead those that seek after Him with a true heart into all truth, that does not mean that I ignore the command to be instrumental, if I can be, in the growth of others.

So I ask you to take the same approach, have a little patience, and I promise to be serious. No criticism (above my usual skeptical nature), absolutely no ridicule (and I will even put my questionable sense of humor to the side Wink ), and you can be assured that I do not dismiss science.

Gotta go,

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 07:50 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 07:06 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  ST, you're response to my second post was of a totally different feel from the response to my first post. Tongue

Western prophetic tradition sums to iam4 - we seem to have no probs there - but the Eastern tradition of void seems to provoke a shutdown of communication.

And prophets don't convert, knucklehead. Prophets got Holy Spirit. Big Grin


Have to get going, but will just say that the traditional role of the (OT) prophet was to "speak to man for God."

Consider:


Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;



Christ said "I will come to you." So as far as Prophets converting, depends on the age you speak of, though ultimately conversion is wholly the work of God from start to finish. But as we see above, Prophets were used in this process, even as the Lord uses those that "speak for Him" today, meaning a speaking forth (of the word).

And concerning the difference in my posts...lol, that is a product of your mental facilities, the stimuli being a concerted effort on my part...to change you.

Tongue

Seeya, House, as dynamic stimulation may result in an untimely cessation of organic activity on the part of yours truly.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 08:46 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Quote:Okay, Chas, you will need to be patient with me, as I do not profess to
know too much about this, so, my challenge to you is twofold: if you are
convinced that I am gullible and believe without any kind of evidence, I
am more than glad to hear you teach me that which is supposed to be so
evident; you will need to present the basis of your belief, even as when
I discuss doctrine with someone I present the scriptural evidence for
examination.
The basis is a belief in evidence. Scripture is testimony, stories, tales - not evidence.
Quote:In response to this, I will just say that if replicable results are a
good indication of the veracity of a belief, could we not say that the
claims of scripture, which constantly, from generation to generation,
produce changed lives...be a good indication that what is taught in
scripture is true? And be fair about this.
No. It only says that following or believing scripture can have that effect on people.

Quote:Also, in line with previous discussion, if there are multiple accounts
of existance after the pronouncement of death, to the point where
scientific process is forced to make this conclusion, might there not be
something in that as well? To indicate life after death?
If we are talking about near-death experience, those are explained neurologically and psychologically. There is no evidence of life after death.
Quote:Have you yourself done the research? And if you have,
would ou say that before hands on experience occurred, the teaching you
received before that research played absolutely no factor in how you
interpreted the results. I ask this because there are two sides here.
Are the scientists that view the evidence, the results, as indicating
creation rather than evolution (and I am not referring to all aspects or
conclusions in the field of study), all just stupid? Without integrity?
Part of a grand conspiracy to propogate religion?
That's not how science works. The experiment is designed to test a hypothesis.
Creationists, by and large, are ignorant and/or deluded. Most do not understand the enormous amount of evidence for evolution.

Quote:So again, is it hands on? Or are you just certain that the men that have
come to these conclusions are above reproach? As for me, while I expect
or hope for the best with all those I deal with, I do not underestimate
man's potential for dishonesty, especially when it comes to a subject
that has ramifications such as this one has.
Science is an open endeavor. It's not that I trust the conclusions of one person or another; I trust the evidence found by someone, checked and re-checked, verified and re-verified by still others. The fact that a set of results is consistent with other results that have been verified.
Quote:You say I believe without evidence, but have you done research on this?
And it is not a matter of "We can't do research on something that
doesn't exist," for, if that were the case, we would still be ignorant
of atomic structure, right?
No, not right - atomic structure exists.

Quote:So we have brand new matter in this world when this occurs? That is what
I am talking about. We (and I should probably say I) believe that God
created the universe...out of nothing. It is one thing for a species to
adapt such as our family living in the trees, but I would expect to see a
physical change without them actually becoming a new species. Again,
bear with me, I look forward to your replies, and have no problem
admitting ignorance.
No new matter. It is not matter that mutates - it is a structure (the DNA) that changes. DNA is a complex molecule and some parts of it can change structure at the molecular level.
Quote:If a previously existing material mutates,
does this really constitute a belief that mutations will lead to the
creation of a new species, as is proposed by evolution? Will man
eventually evolve again, and become a different species? Is it possible
that given enough time and the right conditions, could he grow wings?
Might he grow a tail again?
Most mutations don't result in any visible changes - they are neutral. Speciation requires reproductive isolation so that mutations can accumulate in one population separately from another population with its own accumulating collection of mutation and selection.
Homo sapiens is currently evolving; all species are currently evolving. It is extremely unlikely that humankind would evolve wings naturally. Some human babies are born with short tails.

Quote:If you could, present mutation for my consideration. I would be glad to look at it.
I don't understand your request.

Quote:When you say "may" does that mean it is theoretical? Just asking, trying to be as least a jerk as I can...lol.
A mutation is a change in the DNA code. Some mutations are changes that have occurred, some have never before existed.
Quote:
Quote:A baby is typically a new combination of genetic material.
But the mutation is not? Please explain.
Simply that a baby is a combination of parental DNA; a mutation may be a DNA code that has never before existed.
Quote:
Quote: If there were mutations in the germ cell from either parent, that would potentially be new material.
By
"potentially" is this, again, theoretical? If this is something that
has shaped our existance, would we not have evidence of this?
No, this is not theoretical, it is probabilistic. We have plenty of evidence of mutation and can compare DNA within and between populations. A mutation may have no effect - most of the DNA in our cells has no effect so a change in that DNA doesn't do anything.

Quote:So do we look at mutation as evidence for evolution, rather than
view it as a changing of existing material? I mean, last I heard, life
evolved from single cell creatures (you see I told you I was
ignorant...lol, I guess I put about as much into this as some put into
bible study), and we would expect that if this is even remotely true, we
have to to embrace the idea that one creature becomes an entirely
different creature. And if this is true, we should see this still
happening. That is what I would like to see.
No; mutation is one of the sources for evolution. It provides new genetic possibilities. Selection drives evolution. Individuals that survive to reproduce contribute their DNA to the gene pool. Genes that didn't work out so well don't get passed on frequently.

We see evolution in action all the time. That is what resistance to antibiotics is. An antibiotic will kill most of the bacteria in a population, but some are able to survive. The next generation is now more resistant than the previous, and so on.
Quote:This I know. I don't criticize, ridicule, or dismiss your beliefs, Chas,
it is just a matter of every time I do look at the evidence, it is like
hitting a brick wall. I see nothing that would lead me to view the
changes we see in nature to be anything other than a species adapting to
its environment. We can see this is just a few generations in people,
and in less time with animals or reptiles. I saw a show where a guy said
we were seeing evolution in progress because a snake on an island was a
different color than the one on the mainland. Stuff like that seems as
silly to me as the flood may seem to you.
You are not understanding the evidence. Science takes mental effort. Read books by reputable scientists - they are reputable because their ideas and evidence have been proven to be right.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: