Quote:

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



No, sorry. I don't feel like debating his points, if I'm going to be honest with you.

Quote:

\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



Of course, that assumes that the quote comes from Ken Miller and not one Dr. Scott Todd.

Quote:

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.



I suppose if I heard a creationist presentation I would also say, "How could anyone argue with that?!" myself.

Quote:

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.



That depends on how you look at it. Transitional fossils are only transitional if animals actually transition.

Quote:

Secular historical references like which?? There's really no historical reference mentioning a Jesus which without any doubt must have been the Jesus mentioned in the bible.



Of course, if you want to play that game, then we can't be sure about the historical existence of pretty much any ancient historical figure.

You're doing little more than dealing Jesus an unfair hand because you have a bias. If we applied your same "without a doubt" criteria to all historical figures, then we would pretty much run out of historical figures.

Quote:

Unfortunately the hand full of "historical references" that could be real only mention Jesus' name and practically nothing more.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.



Of course, the issue isn't that simple. For one thing, I don't know of anyone who doesn't agree that it isn't all genuine. However, the only ones who argue that the WHOLE thing isn't genuine are (guess who!) Jesus Mythers. Even liberal scholars agree that its at least partially genuine. Amongst non-Christ-mythers, this is what the passage is thought to have said (at somewhat of a minimum):

Quote:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.



Is there always doubt? With everything, there's always doubt. (Unless you're an evolutionist, in which case you have unwavering faith in evolution). But, and this is just one reference, we can see that one wouldn't be unjustified in believing that Jesus was a real historical figure. With JUST this one passage, we have more evidence than many other historical figures that are believed to have existed.

Quote:

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,



Of course, I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you that Josephus himself was born only a few years after Jesus' execution.

But this is another false requirement. The gospels themselves, (despite their religious slant) if they were truly written at about 70 a.d. are written much sooner after the life of Jesus than other writings. Some historical figures don't have any literary evidence until hundreds of years after their death! And yet your false requirement isn't placed on them.

Quote:

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,



This is the second time I've had this discussion, and this is the second time this defensive stance has been taken. I'm not saying evolution has no evidence. What I'm saying is that some things (in fact many things) about evolution are believed indirectly based on that evidence.

That's the last time I'm going to repeat that point. If you don't get it after reading that, then you're not going to get it. The other guy refused to budge, and after a while it just became futile.

Quote:

No, you reject evidence, that's different.



Pot calling the kettle black, eh?

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."