Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!

[Quietus]

I have seen the other responses on this thread - but I still must ask this simple question.

Did you allow your baised views concerning Religion and Christianity in particular to lead you to a false conclusion about this article being real and not satire?

Christians claim "Intelligent Design" which has no scientific basis.
Christians 'claim' "Intelligent Falling" which has no scientific basis.

There's no difference.

[sharrukin]

Duh! "Intelligence is Falling"!!!

Yes it would seem so!

[PanzerJaeger]

LoL-He still wont admit his anti-christian beliefs led him to take such stupidity as fact!

[Redleg]

Christians claim "Intelligent Design" which has no scientific basis.

Which is a theory by Christians

Christians 'claim' "Intelligent Falling" which has no scientific basis.

Which is a theory made up by the Onion Writers to mock the 'Intelligent Design" theory.

There's no difference.

Someone's idealogical views has have been fooled by the master writers of the Onion.

This is the real Rev. Gabriel Burdett

http://campnelson.kentuckyregiments....tt_gabriel.htm

Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning

Does not exist - try doing a google search - all it comes up with is articles from The Onion or bloggers who are just jumping all over the net concerning the article from The Onion.


You just got to love The Onion it makes fun of all sides of an issue.

[Samurai Waki]

hehe. I love satire. I can generally spot that kind of nonsense before it even happened. As soon as I clicked the link and it said theonion.com I instantly remembered a previous link to the same site (different story).

[Soulforged]

Secondly, if "God" invented gravity, then who gets credit for inventing "God"?

Us of course... We invented God, don't you know that. I remember the last time i did that, oathing before the "body of Christ"... (this last face is for religions not for you )

[Samurai Waki]

I was never too keen on the body of christ, but on more than one occasion I had more than my share of his blood I was just thinking about the episode of family guy where peter drinks the wine and we was like "Holy Crap! Thats the blood of Christ?!? that guy must've been wasted all the time!"

[Quietus]

Which is a theory by Christians



Which is a theory made up by the Onion Writers to mock the 'Intelligent Design" theory.



Someone's idealogical views has have been fooled by the master writers of the Onion.

This is the real Rev. Gabriel Burdett

http://campnelson.kentuckyregiments....tt_gabriel.htm

Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning

Does not exist - try doing a google search - all it comes up with is articles from The Onion.

Redleg,

What is the difference between Intelligent Design vs. Intelligent Falling?

If you read the Intelligent Falling Theory article in the New York Times (the real website), then according to your presumedly unbiased view, what is the difference between:

Intelligent Design as you understand it and
Intelligent Falling as presented by the article?

LoL-He still wont admit his anti-christian beliefs led him to take such stupidity as fact!

You guys have the luxury of inference via previous knowledge of the Onion site. Answer the questions, I've presented to Redleg (if you wish).

[Redleg]

Redleg,

What is the difference between Intelligent Design vs. Intelligent Falling?

Already given the answer see post #36.

If you read the Intelligent Falling Theory article in the New York Times (the real website), then according to your presumedly unbiased view, what is the difference between:

I don't subscribe to the New York Times - so lets see what is available. A search does not provide the article - to adequately answer your question - provide a link. A search of "Intelligent Falling" only brings up the Onion Satire.

Intelligent Design as you understand it and
Intelligent Falling as presented by the article?



You guys have the luxury of inference via previous knowledge of the Onion site. Answer the questions, I've presented to Redleg (if you wish).

Will have to await your link to see if the article in the New York Times is just a copy of The Onion Article or if it is a seperate article. I have tried various ways to find a scientific article from any newspaper - but every article links back to The Onion's article. I can not help but conclude that The Onion's Article has played on your anti-relgious viewspoint.

[Quietus]

Already given the answer see post #36.



I don't subscribe to the New York Times - so lets see what is available. A search does not provide the article - to adequately answer your question - provide a link. A search of "Intelligent Falling" only brings up the Onion Satire.



Will have to await your link to see if the article in the New York Times is just a copy of The Onion Article or if it is a seperate article.

You can't differentiate Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling can you? (There is no difference....)

My question was a supposition that if the Onion article was a New York Times article then how would you differentiate Intelligent Design Theory from Intelligent Falling Theory?

Your basis of dismissal of article was that it came from a known satire site, the Onion. If the whole article was from the New York Times, how can you tell if it was satire or not?

[Redleg]

You can't differentiate Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling can you? (There is no difference....)

My question was a supposition that if the Onion article was a New York Times article then how would you differentiate Intelligent Design Theory from Intelligent Falling Theory?

Your basis of dismissal of article was that it came from a known satire site, the Onion. If the whole article was from the New York Times, how can you tell if it was satire or not?

Well like I said - link the New York Times article - every search I have done links The Onion's article. Then again the Rev in the article is long dead and the Center mentioned is made up in The Onion's article. You want me to answer the question - provide your link to the New York TImes article - because once again every search goes back to The Onion.

Edit: I figured out what you are trying to ask now. There is absolutely no need to attempt such a comparison - the article and the information from The Onion's article is completely made up - it is satire. I don't subscribe to the Intelligent Design Theory myself as being something that needs to be taught in school. If I want my child to know Intelligent Design I will either teach him based upon my religious views or allow the church I attend to do so. I want the education system to teach him the hard science involved with evolution.

So why should I even attempt to compare a Religious based theory to a made-up theory based on poking fun at both sides of the arguement.

But I see you have ducked out on answering the question posed to you by myself.

So I will ask again

Did you allow your baised views concerning Religion and Christianity in particular to lead you to a false conclusion about this article being real and not satire?

[Quietus]

Well like I said - link the New York Times article - every search I have done links The Onion's article. Then again the Rev in the article is long dead and the Center mentioned is made up in The Onion's article. You want me to answer the question - provide your link to the New York TImes article - because once again every search goes back to The Onion.

Redleg, it was a supposition.

If you go to church and the Priest talked about an "Intelligent Falling" theory exactly the way it was presented in the Onion site - verbatim. Would you nod?

If you go to church and the Priest talked about "Intelligent Design" as you understand it from other sources. would you nod?

Aside from the fact that the article originated from the Onion, you can't differentiate Intelligent Falling from Intelligent Design.

[Redleg]

Redleg, it was a supposition.

I gathered that - notice the edit of my post after you had already quoted. Its been a long day - and I missed the supposition at first.

If you go to church and the Priest talked about an "Intelligent Falling" theory exactly the way it was presented in the Onion site - verbatim. Would you nod?

Nope because it does not pass the common sense test of both science and religion as far as I am concerned.

If you go to church and the Priest talked about "Intelligent Design" as you understand it from other sources. would you nod?

Since I believe in the Big Bang Theory of the creation of the Universe - and that the Big Bang was caused by something. However instead of the cause being something - I believe the Big Bang was caused by the God that I believe in. Everything after that - would lead me to believe that God is behind evolution and therefor the Intelligent Design fits into my belief system.
Do I understand that this is a belief system - yes I do. However it doesn't cause me to attempt to demonize those you believe only in the evolution theory.

Aside from the fact that the article originated from the Onion, you can't differentiate Intelligent Falling from Intelligent Design.

Like I said in the above - the article which mis-quotes several passages of the bible gave itself away. So yes I can tell the difference between the two theories.

However it seems you are still ducking the question asked of you.

[Quietus]

Edit: I figured out what you are trying to ask now. There is absolutely no need to attempt such a comparison - the article and the information from The Onion's article is completely made up - it is satire. I don't subscribe to the Intelligent Design Theory myself as being something that needs to be taught in school. If I want my child to know Intelligent Design I will either teach him based upon my religious views or allow the church I attend to do so. I want the education system to teach him the hard science involved with evolution.

So why should I even attempt to compare a Religious based theory to a made-up theory based on poking fun at both sides of the arguement.

But how do you know it was a satire aside from it coming the Onion site?

What's the different of the Intelligent Falling theory satire from Intelligent Design theory in a contextual sense?

But I see you have ducked out on answering the question posed to you by myself.

So I will ask again

Did you allow your baised views concerning Religion and Christianity in particular to lead you to a false conclusion about this article being real and not satire?

There is no bias. Both are scientifically unfounded and unsupported. There's no difference between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling theory contextually, aside from the latter originating from a satire site.

I was asking you the same question, what's the difference, contextually, between the two.

Aside from saying ID is a Christian theory and the other is a Satiric, you can't say what's the difference in context between the two.

[Del Arroyo]

To Quietus et al: If you couldn't tell that was satire by merely reading the headline, you are a little slow, IMHO...

[Quietus]

I gathered that - notice the edit of my post after you had already quoted. Its been a long day - and I missed the supposition at first.

Understood.

Nope because it does not pass the common sense test of both science and religion as far as I am concerned.

See below.

Since I believe in the Big Bang Theory of the creation of the Universe - and that the Big Bang was caused by something. However instead of the cause being something - I believe the Big Bang was caused by the God that I believe in. Everything after that - would lead me to believe that God is behind evolution and therefor the Intelligent Design fits into my belief system.
Do I understand that this is a belief system - yes I do. However it doesn't cause me to attempt to demonize those you believe only in the evolution theory.

Intelligent Design: God is "behind evolution" (in your own words).
Intelligent Falling: God is behind gravity. (Onion article).

What is the difference?

Like I said in the above - the article which mis-quotes several passages of the bible gave itself away. So yes I can tell the difference between the two theories.

However it seems you are still ducking the question asked of you.

I've answered your question again in my last post.

[Redleg]

But how do you know it was a satire aside from it coming the Onion site?

Lets see a made up Religous Institution, using a dead Rev. as the individual advancing the theory, and the mis-quotes of several key bible passages. That and I read the Onion occassionally and know what they do.

What's the different of the Intelligent Falling theory satire from Intelligent Design theory in a contextual sense?

See above - I can not answer your question because I know that the Onion Article is a satire to poke fun at the "Intelligent Design" theory and to futher poke fun at those who want to find fault with Religion. They poke fun at all sides of an issue - that is what makes the Onion so great.

There is no bias. Both are scientifically unfounded and unsupported. There's no difference between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling theory contextually, aside from the latter originating from a satire site.

That is your opinion - you are completely entitled to have it - however again I understand that the Intelligent Design Theory is based upon Religious belief. I am not advocating teaching it to you or to students in school - because like I said - I know its a religious based thought.

However you have now answered the question - you based your initial assumption of D'oh! There's no gravity according to the Evangelical Center for Faith-based Reasoning. It's all about God pushing objects 'down' called the Intelligent Falling Theory. as being a real theory spouted by religion because you want to find fault with religion.

Face it Quietus you bought the article hook, line, and sinker.

I was asking you the same question, what's the difference, contextually, between the two.

And its been answered to the best of my ability - you want to convince me that Intelligent Design theory is a Religious based theory not based on science - which I have stated that I know its based upon religion. So your arguing in circles - I have already stated what you want to hear. Intelligent Design is a religious based theory of evolution based upon religious belief.

Aside from saying ID is a Christian theory and the other is a Satiric, you can't say what's the difference in context between the two.

It seems you are missing the my point - I also recoginzed it as false because the bible is mis-quoted. THe context of the religious teachings of the theory are completly wrong - therefore the theory is a false one even by religious standards that I know. It seems however you don't want to hear reason based upon a religious viewpoint - you want to find fault with anything to do with religion.

Okay since you seem to be against Religious thought, and soley for Scientific based thought. Answer this simple question.

What caused the Big Bang?

[sarcasm on]

Because according to what you seem to have written here - you would have to find fault with the Big Bang Theory also.

Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.

The scientists don't even know when it happen all they have is a best guess.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...se/b_bang.html

[sarcasm off]

[Soulforged]

Oooooook Redleg, but somebody already asked the question..."And before God?"...Is just human nature, as it's ceating "ideal beings" that lives in all things or in a plane where you can't see it or go to, so you can justify moral points of view, power over the earth and have the tools to say what is heaven and how to get to it.
If you still want to believe in the idea of GOD then do so, but be advised to not do such question that don't have answer. Sometime perhaps you will understand that the science have discovered that time is just another dimension (like longitude) so perhaps some day the scientists will find the answer to that question, just to discover that they are in an endless road again or to discover that before or after not always existed, that there was sometime in the live of universe when time didn't existed...

[Al Khalifah]

Intelligent Design: God is "behind evolution" (in your own words).
Intelligent Falling: God is behind gravity. (Onion article).

What is the difference?

Queitus, you must have very poor vision, since you seem completely incapable of percieving shades of grey. You have a very black and white picture of Christianity. You seem to believe that all Christians subscribe to a totally devoted evangelical model of the Universe and are fully behind creationism. This just isn't the case. I'm a Christian, I don't believe in 6 day creationism and I don't believe God is behind evolution (directly). What I and many other Christians believe is that God cause the Big Bang - thus creating the Universe. Why do you find that hard to comprehend? It's no more or less plausible than the scientific 'well it just kinda happened for no reason' argument. What happened from then on, happened.

I know some Christians may believe everything in the Bible literally and I fully respect that, but you can't just apply this blanket principle over the entire faith of more than 1.5 billion people - not to mention the billions more who believe in other religions that teach a similar beginning. By your thinking, because the Klu Klux Klan are Christian, therefore all Christians are white supremacists.

I've noticed that a lot of hostility and anti-Christian sentiment on this forum seems be against the 'extreme American version' of Christianity. Please bear in mind when you are rolling out your generalisations that there is Christianity outside of the CSA and it is not necessairly the same.

[Bartix]

I think "Intelligent Falling" maybe on to something!!
I realise it is not intention of Onion. It is mockery of Intelligent Design, yes.

But:
No sparrow falls without God's mind (will - therefore action ; God gets what God wants)
God causes falling of sparrow!!!! QED
God is in everything's nature, therefore everything wants to be close to God, and is drawn to other thing!!!!

As said in spoof article, Gravity's workings not well understood by science community. Alternate views possible....

[Ja'chyra]

I think "Intelligent Falling" maybe on to something!!
I realise it is not intention of Onion. It is mockery of Intelligent Design, yes.

But:
No sparrow falls without God's mind (will - therefore action ; God gets what God wants)
God causes falling of sparrow!!!! QED
God is in everything's nature, therefore everything wants to be close to God, and is drawn to other thing!!!!

As said in spoof article, Gravity's workings not well understood by science community. Alternate views possible....

Except, there is no God.

[Al Khalifah]

Free will ! God gave man free will, therefore it probably stands that he gave sparrows free will too.

God is in everything's nature, therefore everything wants to be close to God, and is drawn to other thing!!!!

Well of course. I guess that's actually quite a nice explanation for things - would explain gravity in a relgious way.

Assuming that the bigger something is the more God is present within it, therefore:
Prescence of God = k * Mass
Graviational Attraction = - ( G m1.m2 ) / r^2

Graviation Attraction = - ( G * Prescence of God1 * Prescence of God2 ) / Distance Between Two Objects

QED God explains gravity.

[Redleg]

Oooooook Redleg, but somebody already asked the question..."And before God?"...Is just human nature, as it's ceating "ideal beings" that lives in all things or in a plane where you can't see it or go to, so you can justify moral points of view, power over the earth and have the tools to say what is heaven and how to get to it.

LOL - your assuming that I don't know how religion comes about. Knowledge does not mean one does not have to believe.

If you still want to believe in the idea of GOD then do so, but be advised to not do such question that don't have answer. Sometime perhaps you will understand that the science have discovered that time is just another dimension (like longitude) so perhaps some day the scientists will find the answer to that question, just to discover that they are in an endless road again or to discover that before or after not always existed, that there was sometime in the live of universe when time didn't existed...

Again someone missed the [sarcasm on] [sarcasm off] buttons. But I will say this - is it not hypocritical to attack someone who believes in God for not being able to provide proof. When the theory of the Big Bang as purposed by scientists have no proof to how or why it happened. Only that it was the most likely cause. That is the reason why the on/off switch of sarcasm was clearly placed in the text.

Religion means different things for different people. However to assume because of a satire that Christianity will cause you to believe in absolute Tripe is ridiculous. The whole premise of his initial post is that he believed The Onion to be a legimate news report of a true event. His whole postion is hypocritical for that fact.

[Uriel]

Definitely a lot of shades of grey here. I too am a Christian, continually embarrassed and frustrated by so called 'creation science'. I don't have that much of a problem with creationism itself but the widespread ignorance and (unfortunately) deception associated with Creation Science really gets to me. I'm also a BSc qualified geologist (with an MSc on the way but I'm taking my time on that one), working in the UK construction industry.

I, for one, would take issue with Creationists 'taking the bible literally'. It's not that easy when you consider authoral intent and language differences. In records of Jesus telling parables we don't read him saying "now I'm going to tell a parable." Yet most people (even Young Earth Creationists) don't consider the parables to have actually taken place. For some reason they apply a historical or scientific context to stories that weren't intended to be taken that way. Sure - there are some parts of the bible that are meant to be taken that way. Nehemiah, for instance, reads like a cross between a history report and an engineering textbook.

Anyway - my position is that some biblical passages (even varying within individual books) contain allegorical, rather than literal, truth. Add that to translational difficulties and even before we look at scientific evidence and I don't think that fundamentalist creationism is a well thought out position. Taking for example the biblical flood, which most YECs would take to be a worldwide event we run into difficulties trying to pin down what a literalistic interpretation should be. The Hebrew word generally translated 'Earth' is 'eretz'. This word is translated elsewhere in Genesis as 'land' or 'country'. So immediately we are faced with the possibility that this wasn't a global event but possibly a local one. The creationist calculations for the age of the earth are on equally shaky ground. The word 'ben' as in 'son of' can also mean 'descendant of' so we have the possibility of skipping generations. So very simply, using Biblical sources, literalist interpretation and without resorting to scientific argument, we can at least show reasonable doubt in the young earth creationist position.

Geologically speaking, I've never seen a truly well reasoned testable hypothesis from creation scientists, that can't be easily or hasn't already been refuted. I wouldn't even like to call Intelligent Design a theory in the scientific sense. If I considered Young Earth Creationism to be an essential part of my faith I either would no longer be a Christian or be living with a paradox that could distroy me intellectually and emotionally. You only need to look at interbedded or clays and sands to realise that, in a 6000 year old earth, there simply wasn't time to form all the sediments, let alone rocks. Unless we entirely suspend our understanding of physics (eg rates of sedimentation in water) entirely the Coal Measures formation (generally interbedded sandstones, siltstones, mudstones and coal) in the UK alone disproves a 6000 year old earth.

Regarding the origins of time, God etc (I'm stepping outside of my field here). The conventional understanding of the origins of our universe is that spacetime began at the big bang. Unless we accept the proposals by Hawking and others of 'imaginary time' (an unfortunately named 2nd time dimension with apparrently a very solid mathematical basis although not yet an experimental one) there was no 'before' or 'outside' the big bang. Two ways I see of understanding the nature of God are: A pandimensional being that exists in dimensions we are not aware of, and the concept that god is simply timeless outside of it and can act temporally witin it. I find these, and other models, somewhat beneficial in trying to understand the nature of God. The very concept of timeless causality is confusing so I won't go there. Most helpful for understanding the nature of God is probably the Biblical 'I AM' or more literaly 'I AM THAT I AM - I WILL BE WHAT I AM - I HAVE BEEN WHAT I AM'. Einstein (who could probably be best described as a determinalistic deist - he didn't believe in a personal or interventionist god and denied being either an atheist, theist or pantheist) regarded himself as existing both currently, in the past and in the future. I see God as being aware of and able to act in all these but not 'existing' in a physical sense unless he causes himself to (i.e. the incarnation).

In terms of a hypothesis for God's means of creation I see myself as a 'Divine Interventionalist Evolutionist'. The Genesis account of creation indicates that God speaks (whatever that means) and creation obeys. I extrapolate this to a omniscient and omnipresent God both in time and space. God would 'immediately' (I find tenses difficult when talking about timelesseness and eternity) be aware of the results of his command as the very fabric of nature obeyed it. Apart from this kind of intervention, nature seems to get along quite nicely by itself.

As I said before I don't suppose the Genesis text should necessarily be read in a scientific manner, even in this context. It speaks of process but the order of this process is nonsensical if we consider the Genesis 'days' in a temporal order. The earth created before stars? Days before the sun? God's timeless nature could go some way to explain this but I'm not sure it's necessary.

I realise that some of my ideas are a little unusual. I guess they might help some people if so - great. If it were down to just looking at the world and Christianity in general I expect I'd either be an atheist, deist or agnostic. As it is, I have to reconcile this with experience of a personal God and some very direct answers to prayer (physical healings of myself and close family etc in a christian context). Sure - there could be other interpretations (say psycoschematic or telechemical / telekenetic etc etc) but at some point you've got to chose something.

[Al Khalifah]

Uriel... I agree with you. You are one of the enlightened few who can appreciate that the Bible is not to be taken literally and has lost some integrity in the translation.

[Uriel]

Uriel... I agree with you. You are one of the enlightened few who can appreciate that the Bible is not to be taken literally and has lost some integrity in the translation.

I don't know if I entirely agree with that. Certainly, I think the Bible should not always be taken literally. There are some parts that seem to demand a literal interpretation, like Nehemiah as I mentioned earlier. It's certainly possible to take it too far the other way and not take anything literally. If you start to abandon concepts, such as the nature of Christ and his death and resurrection, Christianity becomes a rather loose theism.

[Al Khalifah]

Sorry, I didn't make what I meant clear. I don't think the whole Bible is to be taken as a metaphor. Obviously you can't see it totally that way or else the foundation of the whole relgion falls down. Neither is it all to be taken literally.

[Redleg]

Now to show how as a Christian I knew right off (beside the fact it came from The Onion) and to answer the question posed of

Intelligent Design as you understand it and
Intelligent Falling as presented by the article?

And having had several hours of sleep and time to actually make coherient thought on the subject.

Notice the scripture that was being used to justify the theory in the article.

Matthew 15:14. The author's of the satire purposely misquoted the reference. The Onion Article used only part of the Chapter and verse. Here is what the satire used claiming it to be Matthew 15:14. "'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." The actual scripture taken from the King James version of the Bible - which is what the "Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning ," would have used if they truelly existed, states this; "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Its not a parable about gravity - but one of something else. Jesus did not concern himself with earth and man laws - his teachings are about spirtual concerns and God - ie human morals.

If one understands the meaning of the parable being shown - one must immediate reject the teachings of anyone that wishes to pursue an alternative that contradicts the actual testiment.

[1.] They are proud and ignorant; two bad qualities that often meet, and render a man incurable in his folly, Prov. 26:12. They are blind leaders of the blind. They are grossly ignorant in the things of God, and strangers to the spiritual nature of the divine law; and yet so proud, that they think they see better and further than any, and therefore undertake to be leaders of others, to show others the way to heaven, when they themselves know not one step of the way; and, accordingly, they prescribe to all, and proscribe those who will not follow them. Though they were blind, if they had owned it, and come to Christ for eye-salve, they might have seen, but they disdained the intimation of such a thing (Jn. 9:40); Are we blind also? They were confident that they themselves were guides of the blind (Rom. 2:19, 20), were appointed to be so, and fit to be so; that every thing they said was an oracle and a law; "Therefore let them alone, their case is desperate; do not meddle with them; you may soon provoke them, but never convince them.’’ How miserable was the case of the Jewish Church now when their leaders were blind, so self-conceitedly foolish, as to be peremptory in their conduct, while the people were so sottishly foolish as to follow them with an implicit faith and obedience, and willingly walk after the commandment, Hos. 5:11. Now the prophecy was fulfilled, Isa. 29:10, 14. And it is easy to imagine what will be in the end hereof, when the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and the people love to have it so, Jer. 5:31.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...0796-9417.html

That one is long - so I will also link one that is short and to the point.

14. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch--Striking expression of the ruinous effects of erroneous teaching!

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...70917-743.html


Then the satire authors refer to Job 5:7 and again the authors used this chapter verse in an attempt to make claim based upon the satire nature of the article. The authors used "'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards." The King James Version of the Chapter and verse is - states the exact same thing - but the context of the Job Chapter 5 is not talking about earth laws - but the failings of man. Notice the two verse immediately after and before - which places the scripture in the context of the lesson from the bible.

A religious scholar interpation of Job 5:7 -

II. He reminds him that trouble and affliction are what we have all reason to expect in this world: Man is brought to trouble (v. 7), not as man (had he kept his innocency he would have been born to pleasure), but as sinful man, as born of a woman (ch. 14:1), who was in the transgression. Man is born in sin, and therefore born to trouble. Even those that are born to honour and estate are yet born to trouble in the flesh. In our fallen state it has become natural to us to sin, and the natural consequence of that is affliction, Rom. 5:12. There is nothing in this world we are born to, and can truly call our own, but sin and trouble; both are as the sparks that fly upwards. Actual transgressions are the sparks that fly out of the furnace of original corruption; and, being called transgressors from the womb, no wonder that we deal very treacherously, Isa. 48:8. Such too is the frailty of our bodies, and the vanity of all our enjoyments, that our troubles also thence arise as naturally as the sparks fly upwards—so many are they, so thick and so fast does one follow another. Why then should we be surprised at our afflictions as strange, or quarrel with them as hard, when they are but what we are born to? Man is born to labour (so it is in the margin), is sentenced to eat his bread in the sweat of his face, which should inure him to hardness, and make him bear his afflictions the better.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...0514-8523.html

Ie Job is talking about other things then gravity. It is refering to the failings of man.


Intelligent Design follows the basic principle of Genesis from Chapter 1: Verse 1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

and futher down

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

The Intelligent Design Theory follows the same pattern as the Genesis Chapter of the Bible.

So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.

Now one can link the Intelligence Design and the Creation from Genesis to the Big Bang with no effort at all. The Big Bang is accept as being the cause of the formation of the known Universe. However scientists can not explain with any scientific proof how the Big Bang happened or what caused it. Alll scientists have are some unproven theories, which they believe to be correct.

[Quietus]

Queitus, you must have very poor vision, since you seem completely incapable of percieving shades of grey. You have a very black and white picture of Christianity. You seem to believe that all Christians subscribe to a totally devoted evangelical model of the Universe and are fully behind creationism. This just isn't the case. I'm a Christian, I don't believe in 6 day creationism and I don't believe God is behind evolution (directly). What I and many other Christians believe is that God cause the Big Bang - thus creating the Universe. Why do you find that hard to comprehend? It's no more or less plausible than the scientific 'well it just kinda happened for no reason' argument. What happened from then on, happened.

I know some Christians may believe everything in the Bible literally and I fully respect that, but you can't just apply this blanket principle over the entire faith of more than 1.5 billion people - not to mention the billions more who believe in other religions that teach a similar beginning. By your thinking, because the Klu Klux Klan are Christian, therefore all Christians are white supremacists.

I've noticed that a lot of hostility and anti-Christian sentiment on this forum seems be against the 'extreme American version' of Christianity. Please bear in mind when you are rolling out your generalisations that there is Christianity outside of the CSA and it is not necessairly the same.

Al Khalifah,

Let me explain. Here's my point when I posited this to Redleg:

Intelligent Design: God is "behind evolution" (in your own words).
Intelligent Falling: God is behind gravity. (Onion article).

What is the difference?

Both Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling aren't science, true. But what I'm saying is that if anyone were to reject the principle context and concept of Intelligent Falling, then that someone must rebuff Intelligent Design likewise because they are the same!

If anyone disagrees with this, then what's the difference? (I've asked this so many times....)

Vice versa, if you were to embrace Intelligent Design then you can't call Intelligent Falling a "stupidity".

Myself, I strongly disagree with both, because they are the same bunk idea. One is applied to Evolution, the other to Gravity.

[PanzerJaeger]

Vice versa, if you were to embrace Intelligent Design then you can't call Intelligent Falling a "stupidity".

If we're in the business of arbitrarily telling people what they can and cannot do, Im tempted to say that you cannot tell the difference between satire and real article.