Are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus

were baptized into his death?

We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death,

so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead

by the glory of the Father,

we too might live in newness of life.

For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his,

we shall also be united with him in the resurrection.

We know that our old self was crucified with him,

so that our sinful body might be done away with,

that we might no longer be in slavery to sin.

For a dead person has been absolved from sin.

If, then, we have died with Christ,

we believe that we shall also live with him.

We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more;

death no longer has power over him.

As to his death, he died to sin once and for all;

as to his life, he lives for God.

Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as being dead to sin

Could you explain exactly how that is taken out of context?>

I tend to believe the stories from the folks with numbers branded into their arms.

I realize that we don't see eye to eye regarding bias. But it shouldn't be surprising that scientists are better at science that religion.

Ignored from March 7:
<Science did backtrack on the importance of handwashing and quarantine, and I will insist they did that to exactly the manner described in the Bible. >

You are still bringing up the issues of history and eyewitness testimony.

Heaven forbid that I eliminate the field of history. If the field of history sheds light on cosmology or evolution, please provide your sources.

<And heaven help the Prosecutor who finds people in a jury box who refuse to consider eyewitness testimony if there's no solid scientific evidence, since nothing exists (including evidence of guilt, 100 eyewitnesses notwithstanding) outside the realm of Science.>

Agreed -- that would be bad if the jury refused to testimony of 100 eyewitnesses. If you have 100 eyewitnesses who shed light on cosmology or evolution, please present them.

I suspected you might try this angle, so I think it's important to clarify a few things.

First, let us be clear that historical accounts are *not* used to establish scientific facts. The reason is that science relies on reproducibility. Written accounts are subject to bias, or may even be works of fiction. Scientists may use them to corroborate physical evidence - for example, the skeleton of Napoleon, the buildings built and inscribed during his reign, or the mass graves of the Nazi concentration camps - but written accounts are insufficient in themselves.

Note that this is distinct from a scientist's written account of experimental observations, for the reason that other scientists can put the report to the test by repeating the experiment. Hence the importance of reproducibility. While any individual report is liable to bias, error, or misreporting, repeated confirmation of a result improves confidence. Results that cannot be reproduced (cold fusion is an infamous example) are rejected.

<Ignored from March 7:
<Science did backtrack on the importance of handwashing and quarantine, and I will insist they did that to exactly the manner described in the Bible. >>

I must admit that (1) I didn't notice this when you mentioned it earlier, and (2) I never knew there was a battle between science and religion on the issue of handwashing and quarantine.

Could you provide some documentation showing when science argued against handwashing and quarantine, but religion argued in favor of it, until science was forced to relent and accept the religious view?

<Ignored from March 31:
<How many embarrassments will it take for science to figure this out? Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Hobbit Man, Archaeoraptor, Java Man, Lucy, Ardi, Ida, and soon Woman X are all cases of obvious unscientific claims made about new and exciting proofs of evolution.> >

You've cited a bunch of cases, and you claim that these are embarrassments for scientists. I'm not sure exactly why you believe that.

Perhaps you think these are deliberate frauds carried out by scientists in order to support the lie of evolution? Or maybe you think that the theory of evolution depends on these questionable cases? Or maybe you think creationists are to be thanked for correcting the mistakes (to the chagrin of scientists)?

For the cases I've read up on, you would be wrong on all counts. Some of these cases represent deliberate hoaxes. In those cases the motive was probably greed (either acclaim or money). Some of the other cases were mistaken classifications. Mistakes do happen at times.

The important point is such cases, the hoax or mistake was identified and corrected by *evolutionists*.

Finally, some of cases are just routine disagreements between evolutionists and creationists on how to interpret the find.

<whatthefat: By itself, the quote may be taken to mean that there is no God, which is not what it's saying at all. It's saying that if there is a God, it may not be possible to establish its presence through scientific investigation.>

That is correct, but they are used to establish facts.

<The reason is that science relies on reproducibility.>

So you understand experiments on evolutionary change in nature to are as reproducible as experiments proving gravity exists?

<By contrast, the life of Jesus is not reported in any contemporaneous historical accounts besides the Bible.>

"Your Honor, the eyewitness testimony of my client's guilt is not reported in any contemporaneous historical account besides the trial record."

< This does not mean he did not exist, but it does mean that the feats reported in the Bible are by themselves inadmissible as scientific evidence. >