It's usually better when you reply to something, if you reply to something that was said.
I fully expect Catholics to go to heaven along with Lutherans, along with all Christians--there's plenty of time for correction on the finer doctrinal points.
(John 3:16, John 5:24)
Well, that Adam and Eve story is the entire basis of Christianity, because that's where sin originated. If there is no original sin, then what was Jesus sent to save us from? If Jesus was just a man who was trying to preach love, he wouldn't be the savior of the world, whatever that means.
Technically, no.
This is not problematic in that the bible does not necessitate Adam and Eve being the -first- human beings (in fact strongly suggests otherwise by discussion of creation of a wider number of "them", male and female previously in Genesis, as well as leaving the question of Cain's wife's origin unspecified).
As of the time of the New Testament, which is when salvation from sin becomes relevant (eternal life was not even offered to man before then), the "official answer" of Christianity would be that all others would have died due to the Flood other than Adam and Eve's decendants through Noah. Hence, if Original Sin applies from Adam (note "sin" is not "immorality" per se, it is specifically -disobedience to God-), it applies to all humans remaining today.
The deep answer here is much more interesting, but the preceding simple answer should suffice for advocacy purposes.
Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all."
Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised.]"
Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And cursed is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"
Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.
Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered only a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy."
He said, "Lord, there are many around the drinking trough, but there is nothing in the well."
Jesus said, "Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."
Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"
Jesus said, "Seek and you will find.
In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking them."
--Gospel of Thomas
Christianity is not lacking in references supportive of an evolutionary metaphysics, even in its earliest documents. It's well-past time that the Old Earth Creationists understand the allegorical/poetic nature of Genesis, and grasp a deeper metaphysics which, for one, the Catholic Church embraces.
It's not trivially easy, but this conceptual integration can be done. And, it can be surprisingly rewarding in the insights doing so can provide.
Wouldn't we expect this supposed scarcity and strategic nature of helium to affect the availability of all those helium balloons, used for every kind of birthday/celebration/occasion, costing a nickel-ish each, the sum total of which I'd have to venture would be far -greater- than a fairly limited number of airships?
Wow, what an outright, consistent, obvious liar. Good luck with that.
I've mischaracterized nothing, and demonstrated my points clearly. If you can't see that (which I think you probably in fact do), that's your problem.
Can you name any atheists from, say, 200 years ago who aren't dead? Did you have some other outcome in mind? Maybe I missed something as to the expected sequence of events here.
Then state what your position actually is. Are you saying nothing was explained, or the explanation is false? Don't try to close out the question a-priori with weasel-terminology.
It seems you have difficulty being honest on basic questions of content, as well as in terms of embedding logical falsehoods in terms like "trivially true"... is this an issue you commonly have, personally?
Do you think, per a scientific theory that by common consideration, must be falsifiable to be scientific, should be investigated in terms of whether aspects of it may be falsified? To do so, such has to be considered and investigated, of which many particular analyses may support evolution, some may not.
Seems your context-dropping and particularlizing of ID betrays your true intentions here... you're perfectly willing to abandon scientific processes where it suits you, and you don't want ID to be the case Really Really Alot. That position is as much a metaphysical/philosophical predisposition of anything you present as a supposed issue with ID.
Why is it, specifically, that you want to misrepresent what science -is- (an everchanging set of provisional propositions), as supporting a quasi-religious stance, and embarrass yourself as to presenting yourself as a fortune-teller of what science will be and determine in the future?
If I suggest my car was designed, and it was in fact designed, I certainly have explained something about it, namely, that it was designed. Given this, much more is inferentially explainable. It is certainly not the case that I have explained "nothing".
My statement isn't a mischaracterization, "blatant" or otherwise.
Did you read this part of the Dover transcript?
"Well, I think you have to be careful. I think natural selection is real, and certainly explains a lot of things. And what it's -- what it can explain, it explains well. And like I said, it does account for a number of features of life.
So I would not say I'm criticizing natural selection. I think that many people infer that natural selection has -- can explain things that I don't think it can, and so I've criticized those arguments and those extrapolations."
It explains in terms of design, in no respect more metaphysically-dependent than it arose naturalistically.
I will, though, remember that because someone asserts something as "nothing", with no rationale and in the direct face of the fact it -does- explain something, indeed does mean nothing.
Which is, for those who care about any definitional clarity rather than just making up what they feel like arguing against, actually the position of ID according to Behe (see Dover transcript), who is probably the single central "spokesman" for the hypothesis.
But let's let a little thing like a logical fallacy get in the way... let the ranting proceed!:)
Where would it be? In the pockets of millions of ordinary folks, of course. And what would they have done with it?
Actually, this is a common economic misconception. Wealth is actually -created- by, among other things, gains in efficiency, which is what MS is paid for by other companies and individuals. X efficiency is created by a new product, that X is greater than (X - Cost To Other Company), which is why they buy it. So, MS profits, other company profits, non-zero-sum game. If this weren't the case, there would be no net wealth gain in economies.
So, at base, Gates has wealth because he created wealth. How he did so is an issue of less-central debate.:)
A: No, they don't, since you're stating it as a universal fact. The number of outright-falsely-produced studies should be evidence of that.
B: Every scientist is using untestable metaphysical propositions, daily.
C: Let's just count the number of logical fallacies committed in the "delusional kook" statement... that's your version of a "rational mind"? Ad-hominem, begging-the-question are two we can start with... but, you're "rational" 24/7, eh?
Nice name-dropping.
But as you should know, all those philosophers' views are equally "manufactured", or we could prove which philosopher is correct by testing.
Why hasn't that happened yet?
Ridiculous.
Obviously, you know little about philosophy, and, I suspect, little about science.
Which epistemological model, Plato's or Aristotle's, it true? Given that those questions are the progenitors -of- science (and form the basis of science's implicit metaphysical model), the question seems pretty important... so, what test should we apply?
And what religious organization gave Behe his PhD. in Biochemistry?
Unfortunately for you, science uses inferential reasoning from knowns to hypothesize untested propositions all the time, and there is "scientific objection", it seems, when the domain at hand is contrary to the particular objector's philosophical stance.
See the various "Interpretations" of QM, as one of many, many examples. Is the current non-differentiability between those "poor scientific reasoning" as well?
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find she was a sociopath.
And I'd bet Barbara Branden would agree with you, were she actually "objective" in her evaluation, as the events of her book would suggest.
The problem is, Objectivism in its absolutism is unimplementable. As it carries this absolutism all the way down to epistemology and concept-formation, the inevitable position is that -every concept- has -one- proper definition and inferential relationship to everything else. That is, in essence, to ultimately be a proper Objectivist (and therefore not "irrational"), your brain must essentially be an exact clone of... Ayn Rand. This is borne out by her reductio-ad-absurdum declarations as to what type of music preferences are "rational", as opposed to "irrational".
Since Objectivism cannot, in fact, be implemented, what you end up with is a group of stridently recalcitrant advocates of personal interest, without in fact having logical or common-sense demonstration of the correctness of their particular compromises, which they hold as an unquestionable self-evident fact.
Slashdot Mirror
It's usually better when you reply to something, if you reply to something that was said. I fully expect Catholics to go to heaven along with Lutherans, along with all Christians--there's plenty of time for correction on the finer doctrinal points. (John 3:16, John 5:24)
First point: You apparently have no clue what metaphysics means in the context of philosophy.
;)
Second point: I happen to be Lutheran, so trolling Catholicism probably won't result in your intended outcome.
Well, that Adam and Eve story is the entire basis of Christianity, because that's where sin originated. If there is no original sin, then what was Jesus sent to save us from? If Jesus was just a man who was trying to preach love, he wouldn't be the savior of the world, whatever that means.
Technically, no.
This is not problematic in that the bible does not necessitate Adam and Eve being the -first- human beings (in fact strongly suggests otherwise by discussion of creation of a wider number of "them", male and female previously in Genesis, as well as leaving the question of Cain's wife's origin unspecified).
As of the time of the New Testament, which is when salvation from sin becomes relevant (eternal life was not even offered to man before then), the "official answer" of Christianity would be that all others would have died due to the Flood other than Adam and Eve's decendants through Noah. Hence, if Original Sin applies from Adam (note "sin" is not "immorality" per se, it is specifically -disobedience to God-), it applies to all humans remaining today.
The deep answer here is much more interesting, but the preceding simple answer should suffice for advocacy purposes.
Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all."
Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised.]"
Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And cursed is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?" Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered only a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy."
He said, "Lord, there are many around the drinking trough, but there is nothing in the well."
Jesus said, "Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."
Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"
Jesus said, "Seek and you will find. In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking them."
--Gospel of Thomas
Christianity is not lacking in references supportive of an evolutionary metaphysics, even in its earliest documents. It's well-past time that the Old Earth Creationists understand the allegorical/poetic nature of Genesis, and grasp a deeper metaphysics which, for one, the Catholic Church embraces.
It's not trivially easy, but this conceptual integration can be done. And, it can be surprisingly rewarding in the insights doing so can provide.
No wonder clowns are so poor...
Wouldn't we expect this supposed scarcity and strategic nature of helium to affect the availability of all those helium balloons, used for every kind of birthday/celebration/occasion, costing a nickel-ish each, the sum total of which I'd have to venture would be far -greater- than a fairly limited number of airships?
Aww... that bothered me almost as much as being modded "troll" did. :p
:)
Too many weak people, caving to bad arguments and pathetic peer-pressure, stridently demanding their right to a pointless, soon-to-end life.
Just my personal opinion of society in general, of course.
Wow, what an outright, consistent, obvious liar. Good luck with that. I've mischaracterized nothing, and demonstrated my points clearly. If you can't see that (which I think you probably in fact do), that's your problem.
I -guarantee- I will. Nice knowing theism is true as a personally-empirical fact.
I'm taking long-term. If your assertion still holds true in 100 years, -then- I'll be impressed.
Can you name any atheists from, say, 200 years ago who aren't dead? Did you have some other outcome in mind? Maybe I missed something as to the expected sequence of events here.
Then state what your position actually is. Are you saying nothing was explained, or the explanation is false? Don't try to close out the question a-priori with weasel-terminology.
It seems you have difficulty being honest on basic questions of content, as well as in terms of embedding logical falsehoods in terms like "trivially true"... is this an issue you commonly have, personally?
Do you think, per a scientific theory that by common consideration, must be falsifiable to be scientific, should be investigated in terms of whether aspects of it may be falsified? To do so, such has to be considered and investigated, of which many particular analyses may support evolution, some may not.
Seems your context-dropping and particularlizing of ID betrays your true intentions here... you're perfectly willing to abandon scientific processes where it suits you, and you don't want ID to be the case Really Really Alot. That position is as much a metaphysical/philosophical predisposition of anything you present as a supposed issue with ID.
Why is it, specifically, that you want to misrepresent what science -is- (an everchanging set of provisional propositions), as supporting a quasi-religious stance, and embarrass yourself as to presenting yourself as a fortune-teller of what science will be and determine in the future?
If I suggest my car was designed, and it was in fact designed, I certainly have explained something about it, namely, that it was designed. Given this, much more is inferentially explainable. It is certainly not the case that I have explained "nothing".
"Trivially true", as in... true?
My statement isn't a mischaracterization, "blatant" or otherwise.
Did you read this part of the Dover transcript?
"Well, I think you have to be careful. I think natural selection is real, and certainly explains a lot of things. And what it's -- what it can explain, it explains well. And like I said, it does account for a number of features of life.
So I would not say I'm criticizing natural selection. I think that many people infer that natural selection has -- can explain things that I don't think it can, and so I've criticized those arguments and those extrapolations."
--Michael Behe
Which, you are simply wrong about, as reviewing the Dover testimony would show.
More fun when you can just make up whatever you want to say ID is, and argue with yourself, though, eh?
It explains in terms of design, in no respect more metaphysically-dependent than it arose naturalistically.
I will, though, remember that because someone asserts something as "nothing", with no rationale and in the direct face of the fact it -does- explain something, indeed does mean nothing.
And maybe as a corollary to that, we recognize that much of this battle is a false dichotomy, that is...
:)
1. Evolution explains everything
2. Evolution explains nothing
When in fact, there is actually the option...
3. Evolution explains many things
Which is, for those who care about any definitional clarity rather than just making up what they feel like arguing against, actually the position of ID according to Behe (see Dover transcript), who is probably the single central "spokesman" for the hypothesis.
But let's let a little thing like a logical fallacy get in the way... let the ranting proceed!
On the other hand, atheism kills absolutely everybody...
Where would it be? In the pockets of millions of ordinary folks, of course. And what would they have done with it?
:)
Actually, this is a common economic misconception. Wealth is actually -created- by, among other things, gains in efficiency, which is what MS is paid for by other companies and individuals. X efficiency is created by a new product, that X is greater than (X - Cost To Other Company), which is why they buy it. So, MS profits, other company profits, non-zero-sum game. If this weren't the case, there would be no net wealth gain in economies.
So, at base, Gates has wealth because he created wealth. How he did so is an issue of less-central debate.
Wouldn't the Politically Correct term in this case be... jettisoned?
Then again, politics always confuses me...
A: No, they don't, since you're stating it as a universal fact. The number of outright-falsely-produced studies should be evidence of that.
B: Every scientist is using untestable metaphysical propositions, daily.
C: Let's just count the number of logical fallacies committed in the "delusional kook" statement... that's your version of a "rational mind"? Ad-hominem, begging-the-question are two we can start with... but, you're "rational" 24/7, eh?
Nice name-dropping. But as you should know, all those philosophers' views are equally "manufactured", or we could prove which philosopher is correct by testing. Why hasn't that happened yet?
Ridiculous. Obviously, you know little about philosophy, and, I suspect, little about science. Which epistemological model, Plato's or Aristotle's, it true? Given that those questions are the progenitors -of- science (and form the basis of science's implicit metaphysical model), the question seems pretty important... so, what test should we apply? And what religious organization gave Behe his PhD. in Biochemistry?
Unfortunately for you, science uses inferential reasoning from knowns to hypothesize untested propositions all the time, and there is "scientific objection", it seems, when the domain at hand is contrary to the particular objector's philosophical stance.
See the various "Interpretations" of QM, as one of many, many examples. Is the current non-differentiability between those "poor scientific reasoning" as well?
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find she was a sociopath.
And I'd bet Barbara Branden would agree with you, were she actually "objective" in her evaluation, as the events of her book would suggest.
The problem is, Objectivism in its absolutism is unimplementable. As it carries this absolutism all the way down to epistemology and concept-formation, the inevitable position is that -every concept- has -one- proper definition and inferential relationship to everything else. That is, in essence, to ultimately be a proper Objectivist (and therefore not "irrational"), your brain must essentially be an exact clone of... Ayn Rand. This is borne out by her reductio-ad-absurdum declarations as to what type of music preferences are "rational", as opposed to "irrational".
Since Objectivism cannot, in fact, be implemented, what you end up with is a group of stridently recalcitrant advocates of personal interest, without in fact having logical or common-sense demonstration of the correctness of their particular compromises, which they hold as an unquestionable self-evident fact.
Quite like sociopaths.