Quote:

There were many points that seemed to miss their mark, however, so it could have been done better as far as I can see.



Could you give an example please, I'm not sure if I fully understand what you mean by this.

Quote:

Of course, I could quickly create an opposing presentation using material like, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."



Which would mean you'd probably rip it out of it's context, like you do now by excluding the point he made with this, because he indicated that I.D. based on the arguments given by Behe and co. was nonsense, especially since they wanted to change the whole definition of 'science' if I recall correctly ... lol

No offense, but how can you even argue with Miller's evidence? He effectively counters I.D. on all it's major points and actually provides evidence for it too. Infact, he also mentions one of the biggest misconceptions or points of ignorancy if you like of creationists, the claim that there are 'no intermediates in the fossil record', which is plain wrong.

Although it should not matter at all he's also a religious person himself. He may not be a creationist like you, but he's not against religion as apposed to for example Dawkins. He bases his claims all on legit evidence and uses rationalism.

Quote:

I doubt even that much, because even the Jesus Mythers are willing to acknowledge that there are secular historical references to the existence of Jesus.



Secular historical references like which?? There's really no historical reference mentioning a Jesus which without any doubt must have been the Jesus mentioned in the bible. The 'shakespeare argument' doesn't apply when it comes to documents and names. You know they say; 'but it's said Shakespeare didn't write his plays,' with as response 'well then there must have been someone else at the same time with the same name'.

Unfortunately the hand full of "historical references" that could be real only mention Jesus' name and practically nothing more. It is often argued Josephus mentioned Jesus' brother and thus Jesus like this: "James, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,.." etc. But this is one of many later Christian interpolations, not based upon a real translation and many scholars agree with this.

By the way, you've got to understand that what's required for historical references to be valid, is that it should also have been made during or short after Christ's death. That's a requirement none of the references actually meet,

Quote:


That statement violates the law of non-contradiction. But taking the latter part on its own, you prove my point. You believe it indirectly, based on the evidence that you have.



I'm sorry, but I don't think i quite understand your point. My view is based upon evidence, I've seen a lot of fossils myself too, I've read about the arguments and also the criteria they rationally should meet and is predicted if the evolution theory is right and they all meet them. The evidence doesn't fit the theory, the theory fit's the evidence. The evidence counts, that's what science is all about,

Quote:

My only point is that you can't call out Christians on this point, because we aren't the only ones doing this.



No, you reject evidence, that's different.

Cheers

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software