Posted on 10/06/2002 8:16:21 AM PDT by hispanarepublicana
As to whether evolution applies only to the physical world, not to the spiritual: Consciousness seems to "evolve." In my book, consciousness is not part of the physical world.
Well, not apes exactly. That's an obsolete view of things. Currently available evidence indicates that man and apes both split off from common ancestors, way back there. But that's a quibble. Try re-reading the Pope's statement. He knows what "evolution" is. I think that upon re-reading, you'll be surprised at what the Pope's position really is. I read his statement to be virtualy a complete acceptance of the theory of evolution -- that all living species on earth are related and descend from earlier forms; and that new species emerge from their parent stock by the process of mutation and natural selection. He didn't define the term, but he used it, and it's generally understood to be exactly that.
As for consciousness, and man's spiritual nature, free will, and all that great stuff, I can't explain it. I can't even define them very well. So it's fine with me if the Pope reserves the meaning of such matters for theology.
I'll amend: the predictions of ID must be refined further before any meaninful work can be done using ID as the working hypothesis.
Examples: ID predicts a designer. How would we go about locating evidence for it? What unique predictions does ID make about the next fossil we discover? What does ID predict about the next Australian mammal to be identified?
I would be sinning against the Lord if I ceased praying for you. (I Samuel 12:23)
What does Darwin say about this?
False. I'm assuming that only man makes arrowheads. I make this assumption because to date we do not have evidence for non-man-made arrowheads. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Just as a courtesy, would you mind responding to my actual position instead of your altered rendition thereof?
Darwin is dead, and his theories have been revised considerably since they were first published. The current theory of evolution says much about what the next fossil will NOT look like. Other predictions depend greatly on the age of the rock and the area in which the fossil is found.
What does ID have to say on the matter?
Man and the known modern ape species diverged millions of years ago, yes. In particular, we seem to have diverged from the line leading to modern chimpanzees some 5-8 million years back. That last common ancestor would certainly be considered an ape; it just wouldn't necessarily be exactly like any modern species. Furthermore, since apes seems to have arisen from monkeys, so did we. And so forth on back. When the most advanced animal around was an amphibian, the line leading to humans had to be present on the planet, somewhere.
Ah, perhaps his course load should be decrease then - say to 0. A professor has no business requiring a student to believe as he/she does. Only that they study the material presented and be able to pass tests, write papers or whatever other academic activities are required for the class.
Then what the heck does this mean?
Arrowheads are identifiable as man-made, because we have direct experience with man-made objects.
That it will look designed and look like life, as useful as your answer.
If you want to know if a bullet came from a particular gun, fire another bullet through the gun and compare the two. If you want to know if a man made an arrowhead, get a man-made arrowhead and compare the two.
Take your time...
polite rejection---
nice paint job---bondo/chrome/blown engine...
totalled endlessly---bad rebuilds!
Real cruizer---govt b-52 video---only the scences-lies(background) move!
What features would differentiate it from something not designed?
Tomorrow, scientists will discover a mammalian species native to Australia, and previously unknown to science. What does ID predict about this species?
Ahh, therefore any SETI signal that matches a man-made signal is man-made. Good logic.
valid technological change---growth/wealth...
and the scam/hype artists getting the suckers scaled---fileted...
losers pick losers---don't pick losers!
Evolution is hype---not science in any way/form---appearance!
Once again you attribute positions to me that are not mine. I made no such statement; SETI is not my baliwick. I suspect, though, that non-random SETI signals are first matched against man-made emanations. However, if someone versed in the field wishes to opine, I will defer to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.