"ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel"

[Mark Stacy]

For good reason. No points made there are in dispute.
The past is not measurable, repeatable, or observable.
The only thing scientific about the past is the spiral
bound notebook used for recording history.

I think the British refer to rhetoric like that as being, 'Codswallop', which means it's totally inaccurate and false.
It may be what you want to believe but it's certainly not true, ask anyone on death row in Texas about to be executed who was convicted only by forensic evidence, he said he was never there but his prints, DNA and hair samples were everywhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the British refer to rhetoric like that as being, 'Codswallop', which means it's totally inaccurate and false.

Unless, of course, it's recorded history from the Bible; then it's a different story, isn't it?

 

[SkyWriting]

I think the British refer to rhetoric like that as being, 'Codswallop', which means it's totally inaccurate and false.
It may be what you want to believe but it's certainly not true, ask anyone on death row in Texas about to be executed who was convicted only by forensic evidence, he said he was never there but his prints, DNA and hair samples were everywhere.

I planted them on the scene myself. I don't like the guy
and I work in the crime lab. A guy raped my sister when
she was 12 and I been after him for decades.

That last sentence is true, by the way.

 

[Jimmy D]

I planted them on the scene myself. I don't like the guy
and I work in the crime lab.

Tut tut, you work in marketing....

In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.[2] The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think the British refer to rhetoric like that as being, 'Codswallop', which means it's totally inaccurate and false.
It may be what you want to believe but it's certainly not true, ask anyone on death row in Texas about to be executed who was convicted only by forensic evidence, he said he was never there but his prints, DNA and hair samples were everywhere.

As the article correctly explains, forensic evidence is not science, but does have the
value of disproving testimony. Science cannot tell you what did happen, but forensics
can be used to falsify testimony.

He said he was not there, evidence says he was, the odds of me planting the DNA are
low......becasue nobody knows I hate him and planted the evidence.

If they knew that, he'd be out tomorrow and you'd be "amazed" at the turn of events.

By the way. This will happen someday. Somebody will plant
DNA evidence. If I write and publish a book on how to plant
DNA evidence at a crime scene, that book will be used in court
and the heyday of DNA evidence will be over. Bye Bye, Bill Nye.

 

[SkyWriting]

Tut tut, you work in marketing....

In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.[2] The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution.

I would do that for my sister...no problem.
I can give the rapists name if you like.
He lived two blocks from me and his dad
was a minister.
I've been in school with his sister starting
kindergarten. I'll see if I can find a picture
of his house. I'll point out his bedroom.
He liked to watch "Dark Shadows" on TV.
Personally, I would not support execution.
Not enough time to repent.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That did not escape me. Still I fail to to see in what direction the joke is intended. Thus my question remains.

You mean you didn't get the joke? It's a pretty straightforward pun, playing on the title and the homonymous nature of the 3rd person singular present conjugation of the verb "wipe" and the cleaning product known as a "wipe". Or did you not understand the intention of the joke? Again, pretty straightforward. It was most likely intended to bring some amount of entertainment to those whose sticks are not so deeply mired in the mud. Not something I would have bothered to comment on, were I in your shoes. But to each their own...

 

[In situ]

Past events are always a matter of Faith.

"Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless."
-- Bertrand Russel


That said, I still fail to see what you try to add to the OP.

 

[In situ]

First of all, one cannot observe the past. Items in the past may be remembered by some

Nobody claims we observe the past. We observer the present and the things we infer happen in the past is observed in the present. As such we can make inferences from that which are to that which have happened. I am tired of the "were you there" creationism nonsense argumentation.

What happen in the past is about reasonable cause, and sometime we have no reason to dispute what actually happen - it is called common sense. The eminent panel of ID people in the OP all lacks that kind of common sense. Do not be one of them...

 

[In situ]

You mean you didn't get the joke? It's a pretty straightforward pun, playing on the title and the homonymous nature of the 3rd person singular present conjugation of the verb "wipe" and the cleaning product known as a "wipe". Or did you not understand the intention of the joke? Again, pretty straightforward. It was most likely intended to bring some amount of entertainment to those whose sticks are not so deeply mired in the mud. Not something I would have bothered to comment on, were I in your shoes. But to each their own...

I said I understood the joke. Why do I need to repeat myself?

 

[SkyWriting]

Do not be one of them...

Why I absolutely love this photo is that you don't know if
- it is photo shopped
- staged
- or completely faked.

Clearly it is not a kitchen picture.
The kid may be laughing because the staged photographer
just pushed the kids face into a cake....and the kid is
just now wiping it off. We can guess, but we can't
measure the event or even recreate the event.

What is the temperature of the mailbox outside your house
60 seconds ago?
Go measure it's temperature 60 seconds ago.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I said I understood the joke. Why do I need to repeat myself?

Actually what you said was that you understood the point of the comment to be humour, not that you got the joke. But that just pedantic; I'm sure you understood the joke. So the second half of my post is the more applicable it seems. Surely you were not so blinded by your zeal for debate that you seriously construed his joke as the opening salvo of a counterargument? If you got the joke and knew the purpose of the joke was to be humorous, from where does your confusion stem?

 

[In situ]

Why I absolutely love this photo is that you don't know if ...

You continues with the same old denial of evidence and "were you there" nonsense. Do you have something new to add or is it only the same rhetoric all the time?

 

[In situ]

If you got the joke and knew the purpose of the joke was to be humorous, from where does your confusion stem?

That I did not get the point with the post. Isn't that clear from the original question I made to the post?

So the second half of my post is the more applicable it seems.

I agree. But why do you make an issue of it?

 

[SkyWriting]

You continues with the same old denial of evidence and "were you there" nonsense. Do you have something new to add or is it only the same rhetoric all the time?

My source is flawless and has not been disputed, only ignored.
It remains the same, of course.

First of all, one cannot observe the past. Items in the past may be remembered by some, but they cannot be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or sensed in any way. Observation is an activity in the present that requires the use of the senses.

Secondly, one cannot predict the past. Prediction is an activity in the present that looks to the future, not the past. An attempt to use the scientific method to determine what happened in the past would be “retrodiction.” “Retrodiction” is a neologism for good reason: science cannot “retrodict.” This will be explained subsequently.

Thirdly, one cannot design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. Experiments or controlled observations might help one see if a situation is possible or not possible under a set of defined circumstances, but one cannot design an experiment that will replicate the complex variety of conditions that existed in the past — conditions that are often not known in full detail. An experiment or set of controlled observations also cannot provide information about the order and timing of past events.

 

[afishamongmany]

Hi people, LOL x10
Why do I read these threads?
@Sky Writing, your writing is up there all over the place. Love it.
Oh visitors! I'll be back, God willing. ><>

 

[HitchSlap]

Unless, of course, it's recorded history from the Bible; then it's a different story, isn't it?

The bible is not recorded history.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible is not recorded history.

Says you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Says you.

Says reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Says reality.

Reality can take a hike.