bearofthunder

Now that I'm back (and 2 pages behind...gee whiz!) let me remark on this comment. First off, like insane said, Christianity assumes the sinful nature of man. Man is inherently bad which can be seen anywhere you go (absolute power corrupts absolutely...without checks and balances you see what man's real nature is). Now that we know man is inherently evil, Christianity says that God came in the flesh to redeem us. When Jesus died on the cross, He had finally finished his purpose. He had redeemed us. But, we still couldn't go to heaven because he hadn't conquered death yet. When He was resurrected on the third day, He allowed us to come into contact with a holy God. A holy God cannot be even near imperfection and sin which is why God turned His back on Jesus after he placed the sin of the world on His shoulders. He couldn't even look at His own sin because that would make His holy and perfect eyes sinful. (This is also the reason that Jesus went to hell for 3 days...He had the sins of the world on Him and the punishment for sin is eternal death) That is the reason why anyone who sins cannot go to heaven. Unless, of course, you have some reason to have your sins gone. Hmm...how can this be? Can you have your sins gone? Yes you can. When Jesus died, He entered into a covenant with the Father. Anyone who believes Him to to be who He said He was enters into that covenant. The promise of that covenant is that God separates your sins "as far as the east is from the west." Now you can go to heaven and be in the presence of a perfect God. Because when God looks at you, He sees His perfect son. So God is both just and merciful. The punishment of sin is death but by His grace, you can be justified with Christ and receive eternal life. But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version? Pascal's wager leads to this: Acceptance of one religion requires the rejection of all the others. In the absence of a personal revelation, it is not possible to be sure that the one you chose is correct. So, the probability of believing in the right religion is 1/n n = number of religions Suppose there are ten religions that have the concept of "punishment for not believing" (for example, the Christian "hell"). Again, only one can be the "real religion." That means your probability of going to heaven is 1/10, but your probability of eternal damnation in one of the other religions you didn't choose is 9/10. If you believe in the existence of a higher being, then those odds don't seem very good to me.

:( I used the original mozilla browser when it was in beta and I just learned about this yesterday.

...Have you not been paying attention? Everyone is trying to tell you that evolution is not a one-step process. So the impossibility of 4 pieces reacting simultaneously has nothing to do with 4 pieces added over time, in different generations. Also, chemical reactions have nothing to do with biological mutations anyway. This is called the "establishment clause" and is the first sentence of the First Amendment. It not only: 1. allows the free expression of religion but also: 2. prevents favoring one religion over another (look it up in any encyclopedia). So, yes, the Christian prayer that is held before a congressional meeting is unconstitutional, as is the teaching of Intelligent Design in a biology classroom, since not all religions support the ideas of ID.

No, you're assuming that the first generation object has to be able to catch a mouse (do amoebas eat steak? nope). I guess I made the mistake of saying that mouse-catching was the goal starting from the very first parents, which is wrong. Natual selection is about competition. A "useless" part is not gotten rid of unless there is a better part in existence that wins out. If there is no better part, then everyone advances to the next generation, to see whether or not someone's child will get an advantage and win. "Useless" parts may become useful in later generations when combined with other things. If they aren't, then it's up to the future generations to get rid of them depending on the things attached. What appears to you to be "four exactly right parts at the exactly right time" is actually generations of elimination. My example was somewhat unclear. Here is my corrected version (we need to pretend the board eats...boardfood, since all living beings have a source for food): Journey to mouse-trapping (in consecutive generations): 1) boards - all reproduce (no advantage) 2) board+spring, board+lightbulb - all reproduce (no advantage) 3) board+spring+latch, board+spring+pen, board+lightbulb+battery, board+lightbulb+paper - board+spring+latch has new purpose, can catch mice, so IT becomes a MOUSETRAP. from then on we're dealing with a separate chain from the original "board family": 4) board+spring+latch+cheese, board+spring+latch+chocolate - board+spring+latch+cheese has advantage, so ONLY IT reproduces Result: board+spring+latch+cheese = modern mousetrap (The chocolate one was also a mousetrap, but it was worse than the cheese one, so that's why the chocolate died out.) As you see, only from the third generation on does a mousetrap come into existence. The first and second generation objects cannot catch mice, but they aren't meant to. They didn't know some of their children would become mousetraps, and it didn't impact their own survival (they ate boardfood). Since no one in 1st and 2nd had an advantage, everybody reproduced to the 3rd generation. As for your cell example, all you need to do is imagine 28 mutations.

I don't know if anyone knows about this: In Firefox, type about:mozilla in the address bar.

I know what evolution is. You're mixing the two concepts. 1. How would a cell with no outside mind know what pieces he needs for the flagella to work? Take, for instance, the mouse trap. A mousetrap has many pieces that have to work perfectly, are in the right place, and are in the right order. Evolution says it's purely chance, but why would evolution keep a useless piece that's necessary in the chain? Evolution has to know what pieces are needed...when...and if it doesn't help the organism at that instance, it won't keep it. And yet the flagella has to have pieces in order in time and in the right place. It's why irreducible complexity is such a marvelous concept. It uses evolution to disprove itself. A cell doesn't know what it needs for the flagella to work. Some cells developed the correct part, some cells didn't. The cells that developed the correct part lived and reproduced, the ones who didn't died. It's called natural selection, and it's been shown by fossils of different "versions" of animals who couldn't survive because they developed the wrong structure. In the sense of the mousetrap: Let's say each mousetrap starts with a wooden board. The correct parts to be added are: 1) spring 2) cheese and the goal is: catch mice. So, the wooden boards mate. Their baby wooden boards have things attached to them. Some have springs, some have wheels, some have light bulbs. To survive, the baby boards have to catch mice, right? So, only the ones with springs will catch mice, so they live and reproduce, while the rest die out. Now, the new baby boards (all with springs attached) have, once again, different things attached to them. Some have cheese, some have chocolate, and some have ham. The mice (let's pretend) only like cheese. So, the cheese+spring boards have an advantage over all the other kinds, so the cheese+spring boards live and reproduce, while the others die out. Voila, you get the mousetrap we have today, in the correct order with the precise parts. Intelligent Design must refute evolution in order to have people recognize it as a viewpoint. But its purpose in life is NOT to refute evolution...merely provide an explanation for the great order we see in our universe. By "prediction," what scientists are talking about is the ability to predict (in biology) what will happen in future generations of living beings. Predictions are capable of being made in biology, chemistry, and physics, which is what makes them true sciences. ID, on the other hand, does not have the capability of making predictions. It is, basically, acknowledgment of god's existence and his authorship of the world, which, as I said, is already being taught in biology classes. You say that there is more to ID, that its main purpose is not to refute evolution, but what else is there to teach about ID?

I think there's been a misunderstanding of vocabulary over the last couple of pages. The correct meaning of intelligent design states that it refutes natural selection, which is an integral part of evolution, so intelligent design does contradict evolution. What Ghost says, however, is that god caused evolution, which can't really be proven either way so is, I think, a valid claim. but... So this stuff: is metaphorical? I thought the "world appeared in seven days" concept was what Christians think actually happened. 1. irreducible complexity - The different parts of something complex were added at different times. You're assuming that every single part was created at the same time. Complex objects become complex. They don't begin as complex objects. 2. The existence of masses scattered throughout the universe are no more bizarre than the existence of virgin births or a man who can part the seas. In fact, it seems to be rather mundane. 3. The Earth is not the only habitable place in the universe. God is present in high school biology classes. It's called "Divine origins." It takes up one powerpoint slide, along with "extraterrestrial interference", during the introduction to the evolution chapter. Why can't we go into more detail and teach intelligent design in science class? because: Intelligent design is geared towards refuting evolution. The only objective and teachable concept in ID is the existence of a higher being, which is already being taught. All the other concepts (irreducible complexity, etc) are meant to argue against claims made in evolution. The problem, obviously, is that evolution, as a truely scientific theory (refer to the quote above), has already changed its hypothesis (unlike ID) over the years to take into account these claims. It would be kind of like not teaching French in French class, but instead teaching why French is better in English class.

What if I want to create a new religion called Bushianity, centered around George Bush? I feel something inside of me and I think he has supernatural capabilities. Would that be okay? After all, I don't need to subject my belief to any external laws.

My point is that YOUR common sense based on pragmatism, is only one method of philosophy that not everyone supports. And to answer your question about how people with espistemological mindets would disagree with you...they might say that you have no way of actually knowing what is right and wrong, and that your definition of knowing what is right and wrong is only based on your beliefs, and therefore your opinion. If it is your opinion, then it is hardly universal. Basing my judgment on practical consequences is a bad thing to do? Also, when I said how people with epistemological mindsets would disagree with me, I didn't mean just their claim that my views are not universal. I meant for you to show me how these people would justify things like murder and polygamy in order to prove that my views are not universal. How do you know the general principle isn't "always treat authority with respect and honour"? Oops, I think you just used common sense to decide how you feel about an issue.

What I said in my post is that one's belief of right and wrong can be based on practical reasoning instead of biblical reasoning. If you think "people with very epistemological mindsets" would disagree with the examples I listed in my previous post, then I'd like to know what their alternative reasoning would be. For example: How would option B ever be justified in the practical sense? I might be able to misquote the bible to prove it, but I wouldn't be able to prove it pragmatically. But that's what the point is. You say that the we can't "pick and choose" from the bible, but the bible approves of slavery. So wouldn't following the bible completely mean applying today's definition to yesterday's principles?

Pragmatism is a method of analyzing things. A way of thinking. A way of philosophizing. There is nothing about pragmatism that forces someone to "know" something for sure. It is merely a method of conjuring up speculation. Pragmatism = "A method in philosophy where value is determined by practical results." Justifying "bad things" using pragmatism works. Justifying "bad things" using the Bible doesn't work. Why? Because things like slavery can be justified in the bible (Ephesians 6:5) but not in pragmatism.

How do I know? Easy. I use common sense. Take a look at the messages in the bible about what is right and what is wrong. Each one can be easily justified by pragmatism. These messages don't need to be supported by things like "Jesus walked on water." The "events" in the bible were meant to be allegories. Humans' urge for characters and drama motivate them to elevate ordinary beings to extraordinary heights. The pharoah was the son of the sun god, the chinese emperor received mandates from heaven, and Moses parted the waters. No one is being a relativist here. The teachings of the bible are correct, but its stories are the work of its human authors. That seems pretty absolute to me.

Okay, I'll use a real person. This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_Yahweh Supposedly, he has the ability to summon ufo's. So, the fact that I can't summon ufo's is not proof that he can't?

-.- I am so stupid. He received an anchor.

You got an atrium.

You weren't talking about Jesus as a human being, and neither was I. You said Jesus was different from the rest of us, so we should just accept him without question. The same could be said for Apollo.

And I'm not Apollo, so I should just accept that he really does drive the sun across the sky every day?

For this.

The Gospel of Judas is obviously less accurate because of its date, but Irenaeus could have easily spoken to people who were around Jesus. He is considered one of the founders of Christian theology, so I doubt he would be influenced by the pagan government, the cainites, or any of the other anti-Christianity groups.

I don't know about that. There's been a lot of debate about whether or not the gospels were actually written by the names in their title. For example, the Greek language of the Gospels seem to be in different time periods from each other. Also, some of the Gospels do not directly say who the person writing is. And there is in some parts a lack of familiarity with the geography of the places where the events took place.

I remember Time magazine had this in January about how it was discovered and the plan to reveal its contents in a few months. A bunch of other newspapers have articles on it too. USA today, Wall Street Journal, etc. And this is an article about an actual document that people can see right now, so no matter how liberal nytimes is, they can't make up what isn't written in the gospel already.

But it's just as old as all the other gospels. How do you know those are right and this one is wrong?

New York Times thoughts?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4881526.stm "The dead bird was found near the coast in an emaciated state. Samples were being sent for analysis at the EU's bird flu laboratory in Weybridge, Surrey."

What would be the purpose of this? Age verification?