Death_By_Pod

There are a lot of Christians that believe in Evolution, I guess it depends on your denomination and where you live (Central and Southern America is less prevalent, and Western Europe is more). For one thing, Catholicism supports evolution; thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s millions of Christians right there. It would be unfair to pick on ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâevolutionistsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to answer non-scientific, non-biological questions. Some people who are agnostic would tell you that anything before the point of creation doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter. We are in the state of matter; the pre-universe is in the state of not-matter. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s impossible to describe for one thing and even if we could describe it, wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t affect us anyway (not-matter interacting with matter doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make sense).

There was a supernatural source for creation, however just after the very point at which the universe was created; the supernatural ceased to interact with the natural (if you want to call it an interaction in the first place). ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s kind of the definition of things; they didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t interact with each other, one caused the other (that was all); if they in fact did interact then it would not be called supernatural. This kind of goes with the above so IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll mention a bit about it. NothingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s to say that the spiritual isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t interacting with us, and sure lets assume itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s interacts canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be measured. However there is one more thing you are missing, the effects. For all we know God could be pushing us to the ground and we are mistaking it for gravity, we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see God or his action of pushing us but we do see moment to the centre of Earth. However to us, the notion of God pushing us to the ground is a naturalistic effect and for all intensive purposes it is. Just because we can explain things in the spiritual or the supernatural doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we should or itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the most meaningful. There is no reason to talk about God pushing us to the ground because it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t relevant; what is relevant is explaining the phenomena in terms which hold meaning to us (i.e. larger masses attracting more due to size, rather then large masses god pushing more due to aesthetics). Evolution and creation are two different things; there are many Christians that do believe in evolution. Love is a combination of biochemistry, psychology and neurology. So if we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell the difference between right and wrong, whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the point? If we are so fallible that we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do absolute good, even when presented to us (in the bible for example), why should we consider it to be a practical alternative? WouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t absolute morality be most practical if it felt innate, it kind of goes against the whole thing. Absolute morality should be so obvious that it feels innate even though it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t, otherwise why would the creator choose one moral judgement over the other? Maybe absolute morality doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have to make sense, who knows. I just feel that absolute morality is an added complexity that can be explained by simpler and more practical idea. When we have some sort of iterative process of evolution to describe changes in genes which can also be applied to describe morality (which is probably the case), but to have God telling us a moral law instead just doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make sense; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s adding unnecessary complexity. Yeah but those sort of things can be adequately described as a survival mechanism. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m talking things like 3rd World Labour, Cloning etc. Concepts that donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t directly deal with your survival (however I may be wrong, empathy/apathy would be a good survival mechanism). You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see any clear consensus in moral judgements independent of evolution (if such things even exist). Tell me if you need clarification on any of this, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m a little tired.

But shouldn't an absolute set of absolute morals be intrinsically attractive to everyone (otherwise what is the point). Just because we have freewill doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we should against what is aesthetically pleasing. People donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t go around randomly killing each other or go around indiscriminately stealing things regardless of free will; there are certain survival mechanisms which people are compelled to follow (otherwise it will make life more difficult then what it has to be). An absolute moral system should have a similar set of effects for moral judgements, however that is not apparent.

ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the point that I was getting at; if we admit that peoples application and perception of the truth changes then wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the people who wrote the bible have a different application and perception to what God wanted. The whole idea that God directly communicated the bible to his followers is dubious at best. The bible is composed of subjective views on what the followers thought where God's morals. Much in the same way we think different about GodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s values, except they were the first to write about it.

What evidence is there to suggest "absolute truth morality" exists, when itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s obvious (from lack of consensus on morality) that morality is far from absolute. If you had read what I was saying, you would know that I was talking about the definition of being agnostic, not making a claim. Being agnostic means you accept that it is impossible to have evidence for or against a god, or that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s even possible to have evidence, or that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s even relevant. It has been disproved in that natural world; we are from the natural world, the soul doesn't exist here any more. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s beside the point, making a claim that has no evidence or evidence opposite to accepted idea's shifts the burden of proof to the person making the claim. If I say there are UFO's in the desert, I don't expect you to roam the desert (and for me to claim that they were moved to an underground bunker when you fail to find them) unless I show you some evidence for their existence. No, I'm claiming the nature of the supernatural is to be supernatural. It could be god/God, ghosts, pink unicorns or even a galaxy of self contained universes; the fact of the matter is that it can't interact with us in any meaningful way without contradicting its supernatural status. Like the above paragraph, in order to remain supernatural it can't do anything in our world in any meaningful way; I never said they can't do anything at all, just nothing here. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why they are non-interactive or meaningful; can you give me any reasons why itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s interesting (other then for novelty) or any ways it can interact?

You just described relativism in a round about way. The application changes because peopleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s social perception about good and evil naturally change. The absolute principle of doing good is defined by what people think is good at the time of definition; to the people at the time, it is good and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s all that matters. Apart from things like the Ten Commandments are instructions about some sort of moral guideline explicitly from God? For all you know the moral guidelines present in the bible might only be an application of the guidelines at the time of writing.

Why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t our interpretations of truth change as our perception of truth changes? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a part of growing up and getting older and wiser. Things that we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see have no real effect or relevance to us; we need to view the effect of a phenomenon in order to see and understand it. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wrong for using science as a basis for truth? Every relevant scenario in which we consider true or false is within the scientific realm and inquiry. The ultimate goal of science is to know the truth, all the truth that is knowable and relevant. Words, actions same thing; words are just an example of the many social interactions between generations. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâUtilitarianismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as you call my argument is an ethical method; ethics is just another name for morality (ethics is the study of right and wrong), what part of that statement is not a moral judgement and rationalisation? You can be agnostic and still believe in a god, there are many more options being agnostic over being a theist. You can believe in anything you want so long as you understand that anything supernatural is unknowable and/or has no relevance to us. Why would the soul be spiritual if everyone has a soul? There are many people out there that donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t practice a religion; this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t suddenly make them soulless or evil. It canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be shown with scientific instruments because it simply doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist. Souls existed in a time when we didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand what the brain was capable of doing (and we are only just starting to work that out). ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like claiming evolution isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t perfect because of the fossil record; however that kind of argument is irrelevant because we discovered genes/DNA which proves beyond doubt that evolution is real. The problem with believing in Souls and God created morality is coming up with an explanation on how the soul/morality interacts with us without becoming real and scientific. It violates the definition of a natural phenomenon; if it is observable (it interacts with us, leaves an effect) then it is natural and provable. However this contradicts the supernatural nature of the soul/morality. This is probably the biggest hurdle in attempting to understand your arguments.

Wow, just wow; no personal offence but logic and reasoning like this is what makes me stop posting here, even if I try to give a reasonable, non technical answer it just get replied with another ill thought out question or a claim that my simplified answer doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t 100% represent reality. The truth doesn't change, however our ability to gather data on the truth does change. Before telescopes all the planets looked like stars, however with telescopes we could see mountains and ridges on the moon, with looks similar to the Earth (so much so that when it was first viewed people speculated that there was life on it). This doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t change the truth that the moon has earth like structure, all that has changed is our ability to gather the truth. Science changes in order to give a better representation of the truth through more accurate datasets. If all we can ever see x detail, then for everyday purposes it is the truth; however as we refine our instruments it may turn out it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t provide a 100% account of the truth and hence we refine our theories to better represent the truth. Take note, it is our comprehension of the truth that is changing; not truth itself. To put it simply, good and evil is defined by social perceptions passed down to younger generations. This is why there are many things that are grey; some parents believed in x and others y, the children will make up their minds (with influences from their parents) and then pass it on to their children. Grey areas usually deal with more philosophical viewpoints. For example shooting someone is evil because you wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to get shot so why advocate it. The death penalty on the other hand has no direct effect on you so it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help guide you to conclude if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s good or evil. I really donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand why people still feel there are things like souls and ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ågood and evilÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

This is strange; this is the first thread where people havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t been calling the Sony conference "the worst ever." Much like everyone else I was disappointed with the software line up with only Metal Gear Solid 4 and Lair looking amazing. To top it off Sony introduces two SKU's and cripples HD movie support by not having a HDMI connection in the 20gig version; ohh yeah 600 dollars/euros is going to put it out of the mainstreams reach for a while (the PS2 is successful for its low price and wide range of cheap games, not true for the PS3). Actually they took the idea from Microsoft, not Nintendo; the Technology is the same in the 8+ year old sidewinder pro (Microsoft considered using it in the 360 controller but decided against it). It still has it's rigid design and lacks any ergonomical improvement, the controller just doesn't grip as well as it should (the 360's grip and button placement is much better); it lacks any real improvement (the tilt sensors only have a few specific uses in games). If anything it's gone back a little with the removal of force feedback. To me it has nothing to do with ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅstealingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

So God is irrelevant to us, so why do you care about it so much? What is "spiritualÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

And to let everyone know, hydrogen isn't a source of power; hydrogen is good for an energy store. You use something like nuclear or coal to zap water into hydrogen and then you put the hydrogen into fuel cells for use in cars etc (that way you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need petrol anymore). You don't burn the hydrogen for creating power; you make it for storage and redistribution.

There is very little danger in modern nuclear plants/nuclear energy; more deaths are caused by coal plants and more radioactive material is released by coal plants then Nuclear, not to mention greenhouse gasses. Nuclear power has a lot of misconceptions and unfounded fears only amplified by ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâenvironmentalistsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ (people who rather see fossil plants choke the environment over nuclear, pushing their agenda over actually caring). Wind farms and Solar panels have major drawbacks: intermittency, scalability, viability (economics), ecological damage (development of large farms on natural, undeveloped land), distribution, reliability etc. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t provide base load power with renewable energy, many industrial processes require interrupted which wind and solar canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t provide. We need to start moving off fossil fuels, we have proven technology and proven designs and many new designs in the works. It doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help that America has laws that prevent reprocessing of nuclear waste; about 95% of nuclear material is recyclable, such a waste.

It might be stupid, but that's what happened; there is overwhelming evidence of this event taking place. It doesn't matter where the universe came from, you can never explain it because we have no way to inquire about it, and hence itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a question outside our ability to explain. Much like attempting to prove things like God, telekinesis, guardian angels and magic would be impossible since these ideas don't exist as physical processes.

And you think this is any better of an alternative? What do you consider ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅrightÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

I don't know about that; how about the emotional stress from something attempting to kill them, that is quite detrimental to the victim and everyone around them. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between thinking about killing someone and physically preparing to kill someone (without going through with it); both solely live inside your domain. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t prosecute someone before they commit a crime. There is nothing wrong with consequentialism, much like deontology; both have gaping flaws but both have uses nonetheless. Utilitarianism taken literally is silly; if you did take it literally then you should go to the nearest hospital and give away your organs to everyone (the number of lives you save could easily make up for your single life).

I assume that was directed towards my post, if not ignore the next part. I'm not saying it's beyond scutiny, but that's like saying that Jesus being crucified was "mistranslated." I'm also not saying you should believe she gave birth as a virgin because obviously it's a part of Christianity. But to say that the reason that Jesus' birth was special was mistranslated is just silly... Yet... Wouldn't it be silly to say that God didn't make the universe in 7, 24h days (he doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need 7 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to create the universe since he is all powerful); it would be a much more significant feat then 7 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. You use the translation argument only when it pleases you.

Wow sounds like a bit of a nightmare over in America to actually go to Uni. Over here we get government loans at a once off charge of 10% and interest at inflation, even with the 10% charge it's still a lot cheaper then some of the figures you guys are throwing around ($60000 :shock: ). I do about $10000USD a year; at that price some students still complain about the cost.

Both are just as good as each other; the explanation of god as an uncaused mover doesn't really make it more likely that the universe was created by God (because it is convenient to say itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s God), then from nothing or unicorns. I don't care what happens outside of the universe if we can never 'see' outside of the universe. I would like to think that there is some sort of physical representation of what happens but if a god or a unicorn made the universe then so be it, it doesn't affect my day to day life. I'n not much of a chemist but if there are such positions as chemists and biochemists then surely there must be an explanation for it (otherwise you would have a lot of people just twiddling their thumbs); I doubt it would be too hard to find something that answers this question online (even if you couldn't, there must be university biochemists out there that are more then willing to answer any questions you have). I thought it would the same reason any other chemical process occurs. Upon further reading my comparison to fuel seems to be correct since proteins are just polymers of amino acids (they use the same processes to form long chains).

Where? And so onÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ I posted the flagella response twice in the above post, lets do it one more time for good measure. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html (or if you want, you can search google to get so more articles) Appeal to the future is not a logical fallacy and is not an appeal to ignorance since IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not making the claim. The burden of proof is on proving IC is true, much like the burden of proof is on the person claiming UFOÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s are real. There is lots of evidence for evolution so to prove IC is true one must eliminate all other possibilities for something to evolve to You mean stellar evolution? Evolution is quite different to stellar evolution, however youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re right in stellar evolution gravity is the main force that creates the planets and stars. Let me state again Biological Evolution is a different theory to Stellar Evolution. The Biological Evolution is disputed by intelligent design, Stellar Evolution is undisputed. In genesis the planets and plants where made a day before the stars and moons. However it has been showed that planets are formed as the left over material of stars, hence they can never form before the star itself, but this contradicts genesis. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what I mean when I say genesis has got the days around the wrong way, planets, moons and plants should come after the creation of the stars. A rock is so complex that it canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be gradually formed by smaller rocks: if you break a rock, you get two different rocks from the original rock. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have the original rock unless you have both smaller rocks at the same time, hence rocks are irreducibly complex. However we know this is silly and has nothing to do with evolution yet rocks still fit the definition of something irreducibly complex. But being orderly doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t necessarily prove a god; furthermore nothing is truly orderly if we examine it. Take the eye for example (commonly used as something IC), although it looks complex and orderly there are a number of mistakes that no ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâintelligent designerÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ would make. Creationism and Intelligent Design has been shown in court to be unconstitutional, see: Abington School Dist. v. Schempp (Reading the bible in school) Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (Creationism) Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688 (I.D.) 1)So why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the universe be uncaused by definition and be just as good as an argument as having a god causing the universe? 2)See below 3) Does life have to have the exact same collection of cells, proteins etc. to be considered life? The little grey men that are constantly shown as aliens donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t necessarily share the same biology as us; do you consider robots with human AI, human? The reason why we have the biology isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t because they are the chemicals required for life, rather they were the chemicals we conveniently around. Just because we are carbon/water/oxygen based life, doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t necessarily mean all other life is. What evidence is there to suggest that amino acids etc. were formed simultaneously from 20 different chemicals; I thought that these kinds of things were created piecemeal rather then simultaneously. Like a chain would be formed X+X -> X_2; X_2+X -> X_3 rather then X+X+..+X -> X_n otherwise we wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see long fuel chains (since anything above 3rd order is impossible). These arguments are similar to Zeno's paradox: So how does the arrow move, I don't think there has been a 100% satisfactory answer to this yet. Let A be the set denoting an infinite set of numbers: A = {t | t e R} = (-00, 00) = R [Either definition is valid] I think the reasoning is that, although there may have been an infinite amount of time passed, the process of counting to infinity is real and discrete. Anyway it doesn't matter too much since time in this universe is finite.

Indeed. And the chances of these things coming together at the same time, are very rare. Chemical kinetics is a field of chemistry that involves how fast reactions proceed, and reaction orders are determined by the Molecularity of the reaction. 0, 1st, and 2nd order reactions are quite possible, 3rd order are rare (3 molecules colliding simultaneously), and anything above 3 molecules colliding is (for now, said to be) impossible. Using a flawed example (getting 4 things at the same time, whirlwind in a junkyard etc) is bound to get flawed results (such as 'impossible' probability). Your playing a game of poker, you deal a hand out; lets say you get Jack club, Ace club, 3 heart, 8 diamond, King club (any random hand, it doesn't matter). The probability of getting that hand is 52P5 (52!/(52-5)!) = 1 out of 311875200; normally you would laugh at odds like that, saying that it's almost impossible to get, yet you were just dealt that hand. So whereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the flaw?

The words 'Intelligent' and 'Design' are not mentioned in Genesis at all. If you mean Genesis itself, then thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s called creationism; two different things (Which might I add is illegal to teach due to separation of church/state). Religion study isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a social science, it is humanities subject. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll quote something that explains it a bit better: IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t teach creation stories, however we should only teach them as relating to our culture and cultures past (a historical basis rather then a factual basis), rather then all this intelligent design baloney. I ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâexplain awayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ irreducible complexity by ignorance. For example the flagella is an example of something touted as irreducibly complex however when researchers bothered to look at it, they showed that it is reducible. Irreducible complexity is a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ågod of the gapsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

1)Anyone associated with intelligent design is associated with the institute (Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Wells etc.). Do you think that the biggest intelligent design centre with the biggest names, spawning the biggest ideas (including one of the most important ideas, irreducible complexity) would have an incorrect definition of the term intelligent design? Who cares if intelligent design was used before the institute, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use DarwinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s meaning of Evolution nor do we use the 1847 meaning of intelligent design:

Taken from the Discovery Institute (The top intelligent design ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâresearchÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ centre) http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s in the very definition of intelligent design (not processes like natural selection). Intelligent design is a counter ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâtheoryÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to evolution, one that states we are created by a designer rather then through evolution. If evolution explains all the data we have available and is capable of prediction, then we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need a competing theory; intelligent design canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even do that (in any scientific sense). Can creationism describe how the universe was created (ideas like inflation, formation of the solar systemÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ) in any detail? Creationism is only an allegory for the creation of the universe, its like using George OrwellÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s Animal Farm to explain totalitarianism and capitalism; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a greatly simplified story using symbolic representation of what really happened. It might be vaguely true but we shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be using it as a standard.

I havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t read any specific books however I have read quite a few articles on intelligent design (including ones from authors such as Behe) but thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s beside the point. Why do I have to read any books on the design side when there are many, many articles out there that completely refute what they say? You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have to read any books about dragons or unicorns to know that they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist. Intelligent design might have made sense 100 years ago when we didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know about things such as DNA; we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even need fossils anymore to show evolution occurs. Evolution doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t affect Jesus or religion; it just explains what happens to populations over time, it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell us where the universe came from or anything just simply that we change over time (and if you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see that, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re blind). Anyway IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not going to debate this in much more depth but if you have any further questions you can PM me. Oh yeah how many books have you read on evolution?

A proof for applying a philosophical method to a real world situation would go something like this: Premise 1 (Factual) Premise 2 (Connecting fact-value premise) Premise 3 (Evaluative premise) Conclusion (Evaluative) Using an example: A human foetus has a brainwave after 25 weeks of gestation. A human with a brainwave is a person. Killing a person is morally wrong. Therefore, killing a foetus with a brainwave is morally wrong. Although you might not agree with it, it is a proof and it proves my belief. Anyway this is getting a little silly, so IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not going to really go into it much more. It comes down to what you consider the meaning of proof really is; to me the above is a proof.