Cameron Finds Jesus

[Robert]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Yeah, we need more Intelligent Design freaks who think religion can prove/disprove science!

ID itself doesn't try to prove/disprove science/religion.
Some people use ID to do that.
All ID does claims is that some complex biological systems cannot be explained by random mutations and natural selection. That's an interesting discussion for evolutionists, imho.

And yes, the ID movement shouldn't have named themselves ID. That's their fault.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by CyberShy
All ID does claims is that some complex biological systems cannot be explained by random mutations and natural selection. That's an interesting discussion for evolutionists, imho.

Intelligent Design

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Yeah, we need more Intelligent Design freaks who think religion can prove/disprove science!

No, we don't.

[Kidlicious]

I think I saw a show that said that this claim was already proven bunk. This is just Hollywood bull****.

[Victor Galis]

Umm... doesn't the Bible claim that Jesus's tomb was empty after he was ressurrected? Wouldn't this finding directly contradict that

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by CyberShy


ID itself doesn't try to prove/disprove science/religion.
Some people use ID to do that.

Everone arguing for teaching ID in Biology and not Religion class does try to challenge science with ID.

All ID does claims is that some complex biological systems cannot be explained by random mutations and natural selection.

It does claim more than that since it argues that the supposed lack of explanation by evolutionary models leads to a conscious designer instead of
a)leaving the solution blank, accepting in the meanwhile the current model as an imperfect model that is only close but no cigar.
b) offer a consistent scientific alternative, i.e. one that is (dis-)provable.
Discussion about alternative models have to come (and will come) from inside the scientific community and not from pastors or bishops.

That's an interesting discussion for evolutionists, imho.

Yes, but whether evolution is random selection or follows a plan is a metaphysical question and should remain exactly that.

[Robert]

Like I said, some people take ID and (try to) use it to prove the existence of God, as our creator.
ID cannot do that. period.

That doesn't mean that ID is religion. ID is science, and can for that reason hypothetical be teached in classes. But surely not yet. And it can never be teached as a complete system that explains our existence. But if (more) biological systems are discovered that clearly can't be explained by our current knowledge of evolution, then schools should teach that to their students.

But once again, they should never have named it ID, the theory named ID does nothing more then saying that there are certain things that can't be explained by evolution. Perhaps they can be explained by something else, something that's not evolution and not creation, we just don't know. IT's a gap, and we shouldn't fill gaps with God.

But the evolutionists should be open for the suggestion that evolution may after all not be the final answer to life as we know it.
But ID is not religion, eventhough some religious people use it to promote their views.
Paul uses sport as an example in his letters in the New Testament. Does that make sport religion as well?

Yes, but whether evolution is random selection or follows a plan is a metaphysical question and should remain exactly that.

For the biggest part, yes, but for individual cases, no.
BTW, you assume that it's a choise between the two options you show. Perhaps there are more options, we just don't know. And after all do I wish we had scientists that would say "We don't know" more often. Or "There's so much we don't know yet."

There's a lot I don't know, and I'm not ashamed to say that.
I've listened to some ID guys, read some books, and there was a lot that they said that made sence. And there was a lot that didn't make sence. We should focus on the first and ignore the latter.

[ZEE]

Yes, but whether evolution is random selection or follows a plan is a metaphysical question and should remain exactly that.

well me being a christian, ive always believed evolution is TIED to Adam and Eve through the "missing link." everything is tied together IMHO.

[LordShiva]

Bondage

[ZEE]

[Straybow]

I don't know about Matthew, but Mary (Miriam), Jesus (Joshua), Joseph, and Judah are among the most common Jewish names throughout the ages. Right up there with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Moses.

[Heresson]

I see no reason why this should be this Jesus

[laurentius]

Even if this was true I dont see it being a huge shock to others than the Catholics, the Orthodox Christians and other dogmatic churches.

I think the protestants have long since accepted that the bible is a compromise between the bishops during the centuries. Lot of things have been left out and fine tuned to fit the late roman and medieval moral standards and preferations.

Even if Jesus had brothers, was married to Mary the Magdalene and even if they had a child it wouldnt change the idea of christianity. Sure it would make him look more human but maybe we are ready to face the truth and dont need no bishops to decide on our behalf what may be revealed to us and what will be wiped away from our eyes. Even if the bones were those of Jesus it would not change anything. You didnt really think he physically ascended to heaven do you? I mean its obvious he left his carnal body behind right.

just my thoughts on this...

[Pekka]

laurentius, they should have, because they were a big part of shaping it. That's like the cook denying he ever had any influence on the cake

[laurentius]

who should have? and what?