Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology


On 9-Sep-2006, "UC" <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Skitter_the_Cat@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 9-Sep-2006, "snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Skitter_the_Cat@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 9-Sep-2006, "snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

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.

If you really think that science requires that events obey the laws
of
nature, then you simply don't understand the nature or method of how
those
"laws" were formulated and/or the way science works. A "Natural
Law" is
nothing more than the explanation and conclusion that boils down to
"The
evidence is overwhelming that whenever we test x, y happens and this
confirms our explanation for x". Science doesn't require that
events
obey
"Natural Law", science simply seeks to understand the nature of what
is.
Our understanding of what you seem to mean by the term "Natural
Law"
has
changed and will continue to change as evidence comes in.
For example, people how are considered "dead" do in fact "come back
to
life"
and on rare occasion animals who have not being impregnated give
birth.
Are
these examples of miracles? What is a miracle? Is spontaneously
coming
out
of a state of extremely low metabolism after a period of time a
miracle?
Is parthenogenesis a miracle? Both events occur. If the Laws of
Nature
worked as you are outline, such events could simple not be-but they
are.
Natural Law, as you seem to be using the term is a construct of
humanity.
Reality is not confined to neat, tidy rules.
Which is not to say that magic is a useful explanation for anything
in
nature. Science works to discern how reality works, how things
truly
are,
based on the best available evidence and reasoning. Clearly, based
on
the
earlier portions of the thread, you agree that one can't go beyond
the
evidence and "do science".
That seems to be the rub of it. The probability that there would
survive
useful evidence regarding a specific First Century wandering Jewish
preacher
with a handful of followers who got whacked by the Romans is pretty
slim.
There were lots of wandering Jewish preachers in the first century
that
got
whacked by the Romans. As a group and as a movement, and on rare
occasions
as individuals, useful historical evidence can be teased out and
conclusions
reached. The Jesus ministry fits into a historical context, but to
assert
with certainty that particular aspects of the Gospel accounts are
fact
or as
fiction goes beyond the evidence. One can only speak of
plausibility
and
probabilities.
Skitter the Cat

i am not referring to our understanding of the laws of nature. i am
referring to the *actual* laws of nature that science attempts to
discover. while we havent yet got a perfect picture of these actual
laws, there are many areas where we can be pretty confident that we
are
right. one of those areas is in the idea that dead men dont get up 3
days later.

I am not sure that I understand. All that we have to work with is our
understanding of the laws of nature. I am not sure, given the
contingent
understandings that scientific theories are, that the idea that we can
ever
discern the "actual" laws of nature is something that can be asserted as
to
be within the realm of science.

I agree that we can be pretty confident that dead men don't get up after
three days, but that is a long way from asserting that it can't (or in a
particular instance couldn't) happen, particularly when cases of dead
(for
reasonable definitions of the term "dead") guys getting up has been
known to
occur.

'Dead' MEANS beyond revival. If someone can be revived, he's not
'dead'. We all know what cesation of heartbeat does to the brain.
Starved of oxygen carried by blood, the brain cells rapidly die. The
other organs of the body rapidly begin to die as well, when dprived of
circulating blood.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122781/science/waysdie.htm

Certain drugs (e.g., puffer fish toxin) can cause the appearance of
death. But if one is not actually dead, no resurrection is occurring.

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ttx/ttx.htm

'Almost dead' is not 'dead'. Dead men tell no tales, and are not
capable of resurrection, period.

Death is a process. Even when someone is "dead" in the modern, clinical
meaning of the term, it is not like every portion, every cell, dies all at
once. My point is that "dead" is not a black/white issue. The line between
life and death/non-life is not something for which an easy definition
exists. At this moment, parts of "me" (whatever that is) are dying and/or
dead. Am I dead? dying? Alive and living normally? For some states of
"dead" resurrection occurs. I am not asserting that absent "magic",
resurrection is possible for all states of being "dead". Exactly what sort
of state of "dead" a "historical" Jesus might have been in something for
which I know of no way to collect reliable evidence. I suspect that the
understanding and definition of "what it means to be dead" is probably
different for the Gospel writers and for you and/or I.

Hope the above clarifies my line of thinking.

Skitter the Cat

<snip>
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... of energy today only has its re-transformation eons after humans have ... Science is about understanding the laws of nature as they can be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The morality of Nature
    ... Look up the laws of thermodynamics, ... foundation of modern science, and the most well understood laws of nature. ... But science points straight to God, ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: The score
    ... order of plausibility. ... call into question everything we know, including how we can use science ... outside all the laws of nature. ... are just too many irreversible events that happen to dead bodies, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The score
    ... order of plausibility. ... call into question everything we know, including how we can use science ... outside all the laws of nature. ... are just too many irreversible events that happen to dead bodies, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... If you knew anything about science, ... historical events obey the laws of nature just as much as it requires ... people how are considered "dead" do in fact "come back to ...
    (talk.origins)