Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology


roger_pearse@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.

if you hadnt dishonestly snipped my next paragraph, youd see that your
question is already answered.


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.

where do i proselytize for this? how is promoting logic and science
proselytizing anyway? we already know that they work.


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!

im merely trying to get VoU to stop engaging in pagano-style sophistry
and state his position.


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?

how is this relevant to anything?


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.

"the resurrection did not happen" is not a religious opinion. it is a
statement about actual historical events. science requires that
historical events obey the laws of nature just as much as it requires
current and future events to.


All the best,

Roger Pearse

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... Some that are observable and that repeat, ... I would call those historical events. ... It is only clear that we disagree on the definition of science. ... What you call evidence is evidence of the effect not the cause. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... > "I am certainly well aware of the advances of science. ... The question is - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... > design and creationism, ...
    (soc.retirement)