"The SCOTUS abused the Constitution" is a different argument from "This is a bad idea--if the Constitution does protect it, we should change the Constitution."

Wait... You're saying there's a reason plants don't move?

Does this mean Google infringed copyright with tongue?

Or, put another way (which I think it somewhat more understandable): Everyone deserves the sentence. Some accept the pardon.

That's why the category "good enough for heaven" has just about nothing to do with Christianity.

Oh, so this isn't a story about astronomy... what a relief!

It simply means that there are people who beleive parts of the Bible speak of events that actually occured.

Actually, everyone believes that parts of the Bible speak of events that actually occurred. (The Bible talks about some things that we also know about from non-biblical sources.)

It would be better to say: Some people believe that there are so-far-uncorroborated parts of the Bible that actually occurred.

It sounds like you misunderstood my comment, and didn't read my response to Quothz. Or maybe you're just saying something really weird. I can't quite tell; you can clarify.

My point was that the GP's rationale for Obama receiving the prize didn't involve any accomplishments other than people liking & trusting him. I wasn't casting stones at the award; I wasn't saying that Obama hasn't done anything. If I was casting stones at anyone, it was the GP.

But even if I had been casting stones at Obama--if I was saying that he's done nothing--your response wouldn't make sense.

If someone says the president hasn't done anything, and he has, you can correct them, like Quothz did. You didn't. You actually seem to think that average citizens lack the standing to criticize giving the Nobel Peace Prize for promises & intentions. You seem to think, "Unless you're an achiever on the international scene, you should shut up about the whole subject." And that's pretty silly.

I didn't mean to say that he hasn't done anything; I was commenting on the GP's rationale for the prize. The question marks were, "This is your reasoning?"

Your reasoning for why he deserves the Peace Prize seems to be, "Because many people in the world like and trust him," right?

Focusing in on the "fraternity between nations" part of the definition? With the hope that, since people like him a lot more than Bush, he'll be able to do something toward reducing standing armies and promoting peace?

He hasn't really done anything toward those goals, but people like him, so maybe he'll be able to eventually?

Which basically means, any time we have any national leader who is broadly well-liked, we should give him the prize?

You said some completely valid things in your post. But you also seemed to entirely miss my last sentence.

I had said, "You could question whether the girls are learning fear vs something else, but the test still seems to show that the girls are being trained by the images while the boys aren't."

1.) This study is not bogus. It's showing a real training/history effect, specific to gender.
2.) Yes, an MRI would be better as a "fear" diagnostic. (Can you do an MRI on an infant?)
3.) The study author might actually discuss the issues involved with using "time looking" as a diagnostic.
4.) More study is needed, but the data is interesting and the hypothesis is reasonable.

The linked article says that they were measuring length of time spent looking, not judging facial expressions. If you did RTFA, you skimmed it and missed that detail.

The study does seem to demonstrate that girls are being trained by the images while the boys aren't. It might not be "trained to fear", but something is responsible for the difference between the tests. There's a history effect. The girls are learning something the boys aren't.

Can you isolate the experiment from their expectations?

Yes, you can, though I don't know if this study did so.

Make it more blind. Have volunteers (who can't see the images) classify the infants' reactions to the images.

Whoops, hold on. I just RTFA. They're not evaluating based on the infants' facial expressions--they're evaluating based on how long the infants looked at each image. That's objective--hard to see how the scientists' expectations would be affecting the data. Mind you, "more time looking==more scared" isn't obviously valid, but the difference in times between the tests is still significant. You could question whether the girls are learning fear vs something else, but the test still seems to show that the girls are being trained by the images while the boys aren't.

Which still includes him in the dying & whatnot.

There's also the general contrast between "outward appearance" and "heart". There's things along those lines in the OT--so if it is an extension/expansion, it's not wholly novel.

2) An expansion of a definition of sin based on the only "principals" known at the time (i.e. old testament's 10 commandments).

Ah, that's the part that makes me go "say what"?

The Old Testament law contains a lot more than the 10 Commandments, so they're not the "only principles known at the time". They have some importance, but Moses came down from the mountain with a lot more than that. And for that matter, the prophets say a lot throughout the OT.

Which is why you can't immediately claim that he's actually expanding anything, just because it's not in the 10 Commandments. You have to know what kind of things the OT teaches before you decide that. And even if this particular application hadn't been made in any Hebrew Scripture, that doesn't mean the basis for the application is new.