Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: roger_pearse@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 9 Sep 2006 02:37:56 -0700
snex wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
the evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles.
Another unsupported assumption. Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
absence of evidence indicates that reasonable people refrain from
believing until evidence arrives.
You need to decide whether you are arguing
1. That the "evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles."
or
2. That there is no evidence of miracles.
Neither position is true, but you need to be consistent, surely?
I wonder if you could offer any evidence for what you no doubt
proselytise for, conformity to some subset of the societal values of
the period in which you happened to be born. If not, your comments
about absence of evidence would seem to need qualification.
do you believe that god exists? yes or no?
do you believe that the bible is his inspired word? yes or no?
I notice that you don't want to discuss your preferred alternative!
you mean you dont want to answer my question, yet you still think your
views should be respected.
Can you even state the views by which you live your life, other than in
words borrowed from the media of our day?
you admitted to belief in the resurrection. you are a science denier.
Another unsupported assertion. Dude, you're getting boring with this.
your science denial is boring. stop pretending that creationists should
accept evolution when you dont accept basic anaotmy of humans.
Another non-scientist. If you knew anything about science, you would
know that it does not commit to religious opinions such as "the
resurrection did not happen." Your 19th century rationalism is
amusing, but scientists are not rationalists.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: snex
- Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: Zachriel
- Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: snex
- Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: VoiceOfReason
- Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: snex
- Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: VoiceOfReason
- Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: snex
- Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: VoiceOfReason
- Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: snex
- Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: VoiceOfReason
- Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: snex
- Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: VoiceOfReason
- Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: snex
- Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: VoiceOfReason
- Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- From: snex
- Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- Prev by Date: Re: Op-Ed: America's evolution from God
- Next by Date: Re: Op-Ed: America's evolution from God
- Previous by thread: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- Next by thread: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|