Dear David,
So, it is not that I misunderstand science; I just don’t know what it is. Thanks for that assurance. It makes me feel a lot better.

I’m glad you agree that ID is alive. Zimmerman rails about the damage that a dead thing is doing. His article is large on emotion, but misses the target. Many of the posts just follow suit.

Zimmerman’s article is not up to standard, coming from someone who I’ve heard has a PhD in science.

The proponents of Intelligent Design don’t think of themselves beyond criticism. But if someone could write an informed critique of ID, then maybe we all might learn something.

Dear Dan,

I have gained the impression that there are there are OLO posters who believe the Bible, literally. Perhaps, owing to the nature of the Forum, if my assumption is true, our biased population does not represent Christians as large. Rather, some selection process (ahem) has them more common here.

I would agree that there is little direct claim for a “flat earth” in Genesis. But the order of creation which suggests a vault is created over the earth is interesting. Fully logical, as Babylonians and earliest Egyptians used the model: e.g., the god, Nut. This idea is reinforced in Job 22.14 and 37:18.

The Jews had several ways of counting from Adam and Eve (Theiring), with competing versions of solar and lunar calendars, having calendars of 354 days and 364 days. This is why Judeo theists had different dates for their End Times.

Are you saying that “walking on water” and “turning water into wine” might not have happened, literally? That there could be some sales pitch in the NT: A mnemonic device, perhaps. Substitutionary random aside.

Dear Runner,

I have answered you. Herein, you know from earlier threads, I was referring to tree rings.

Now do what you promised: Answer my question, please.

Dear Vanna,

Matter and antimatter eliminate each other. They can co-exist, but separately. It is theorised there is some asymmetry to the expansion of the universe. E=mc2 and matter/antimatter are at substrata underlying atoms (and other particles), when atoms exchange electrons to make elements, energy is released by not of the same high order.

So you agree that what ever biological transmutation took place, known elements go into the black box (state machine) and known elements come out. Any change is “not” to fundamental elements?

Dawkins hints at symbiotic relationships developing to a point where the organisms essentially act as one; “Perhaps, even we ourselves”.

Dear OUG,

The early Jesus movements had to be harmonised with Roman beliefs. Moreover, the template for the Christian trinity was almost certainly copied from the Egyptians (Wells). Ancient religions applied “syncretion”: i.e., meld beliefs.

Dear DavidF,
thanks for the link to the Hume-Rousseau spat, which I wasn't aware of. I read Rousseau's "Confessions" years ago but don't recall reading about Hume in there. I also have "Keywords".
I thought you said something on another thread about co-writing some article on Ethics? But no matter.

I don't know that getting rid of Humanity's demons is possible or desirable; both Hume and Rousseau demonstrate how much of our lives is sheer performance, and the reality of what lies beneath. I met someone recently who argued that Schelling's late thought, rather than building on German idealism, argued not only that, a la Hume, we had no access to 'reality', but that we are to a man quite 'mad'.
I regretted after posting my last that I didn't cite "paranoid self-interest" as the fuel of capitalism, as competition among us at every level is downright vicious beneath surface complaisance.
However, humanity's monadological eccentricity is perhaps also the driving force behind our aspirationalism. Possibly the healthiest way to sublimate our demons is to "obsess rationally", which leads in turn to sporadic 'progress'. However, rationalism is an affectation and I don't think we will ever become that race of Vulcans Dawkins dreams about--not even one of us. A vast number might even need supernaturalism to counter and make sense of their demons.

"Rest not in an ovation, but a triumph over thy passions.Let anger walk hanging down the head; let malice go manicled, and envy fetter'd after thee. Behold within thee the long train of thy trophies not without thee. Make the quarreling Lapithytes sleep, and the Centaurs within lye quiet. Chain up the unruly legion of thy breast. Lead thine own captivity captive, and be Caesar within thyself" (Thomas Browne).

Rationalism will never prevail as an ideology; its only one shallow persona among a far more colourful host in the average breast, and easily imposed upon. The human psyche seems intrinsically irrational and perhaps needs extrinsic complementarity. Moreover, this internal strife is probably productive of creativity, 'meaning' and sometimes even sanity.
Establishing first causes is typically monomaniacal.

Oliver,
If you admit that there’s not much direct claim for a flat earth in Genesis, why do you keep banging on about it? Does it have anything to do with Zimmerman’s article on ID?

Certainly, many OLO posters, such as myself, and many in the community take a straight forward historical approach to Genesis, which has been the standard Christian view for the greater part of two thousand years. That does not mean they read the poetry in other parts of the Bible as something other than poetry.

If I wasn’t clear earlier, I’ll try to be so now. I accept the miracles of Jesus as described in the gospels. A God who could create everything should be able to change water into wine or walk on water.

Oliver,

Obviously something is keeping matter and antimatter apart, as it would be rather unfortunate if the drifted together.

However back to ID.

Much points towards eventual terraformation, and the spreading of life onto other environments other than Earth. That may be just science, or it may be a highly technoligical form of evolution.

If it happens, it would be best to define the reasons for seeding life elsewhere, so that suitable organisms can be designed and synthesised.

Perhaps answering the question of "Why does life exist" is beyond mankind at present. Although we may develope the means to create synthethic life, we have not developed the answers to basic questions.

The theory of evolution does not help much in answering those questions.

OLiver you are not telling the truth. You have not told me how old the earth is in your opinion and how you reached that conclusion. Now how old is it and how did you reach that conclusion?