A question from a creation website

[crjmurray]

No....that's not the same. Unless they get something like video (direct observation) or a confession, the court case is going to involve having to convince the jury that the conclusions the PD came to are in fact correct. The jury may not be convinced.

This "jury" isn't.

I hope you don't believe our legal system simply throws people in prison because the "Scientist Police" have determined they're guilty.

The prosecution presents evidence that has been deemed admissible. DNA, fingerprints, gunshot tattooing, blood typing, etc. are all admissible yet do not require direct observation of the crime. You're saying that unless there is video, a confession, or an officer of the law directly observes a crime then we just can't convict anybody.

 

[crjmurray]

This "jury" isn't.

Then the case is wide open for a mistrial.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then the case is wide open for a mistrial.

If creationists were on a jury, would they be convinced by their own arguments? I doubt it.

Defense Attorney: "I will alert the jury to a very important fact. No one observed my client putting his fingerprints on the bloody knife. Therefore, there is no evidence against my client."

 

[crjmurray]

If creationists were on a jury, would they be convinced by their own arguments? I doubt it.

Really? Have you seen em defend Kent Hovind?

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? Have you seen em defend Kent Hovind?

Point taken.

 

[sfs]

This is erroneous. Scientists may be trying to operate this way, but will come to bad conclusions. Observing effects simply won't guarantee you've come to appropriate conclusions regarding cause. I learned this as a five year old shaking my Christmas presents to try to figure out what was inside. It's the same principle. Observation as a word actually means observation.

As others have pointed out, you have a highly distorted understanding of what scientists actually do.

 

[crjmurray]

As others have pointed out, you have a highly distorted understanding of what scientists actually do.

Yeah and law enforcement....

 

[The Cadet]

@Poor Beggar please don't confuse the hypothesis with the evidence. The evidence needs to be observable and repeatable. The hypothesis does not. If our hypothesis is "Col. Mustard stabbed Scarlet to death in the Ballroom", we do not have to get Col. Mustard to stab Scarlet again in order to demonstrate it.

 

[Poor Beggar]

@Poor Beggar please don't confuse the hypothesis with the evidence. The evidence needs to be observable and repeatable. The hypothesis does not. If our hypothesis is "Col. Mustard stabbed Scarlet to death in the Ballroom", we do not have to get Col. Mustard to stab Scarlet again in order to demonstrate it.

Unfortunately the " evidence" is being seen as evidence in light of presuppositions for macroevolution. Those presuppositions are the "hypothesis". Bottomline, we need to see stuff coming alive every now and then. We need to see gdnotypes progressing, not just phenotypes expressing. We just aren't seeing it. We can mentally touch over theories all day, but the actual thing isn't actually happening. Throughout history there have been absolutely grand theories explaining all sorts of ideas that seemed to really, really make sense. People even pointed to evidence. Aristotle did this all the time. Later we discovered MANY of these things to be wrong. Sometimes centuries had to go by before people would finally acmit the ideas were wrong. Let's at least admit science might not be done with this yet.

 

[USincognito]

For the "theory" to stand it would indeed require life to come from no-life. No matter incremental you make it, at some point something that wasn't alive became alive, according to the "theory". It can't be avoided.

Incorrect. The theory of evolution (no need for the childish scare quotes, a real and robust scientific theory) only deals with extant life that reproduces and imperfectly passes on its genetic material. The origin of life effects evolution not one iota. Life on earth could originate due to abiogenesis, panspermia fiat Creation by God or any other means and it wouldn't change or effect evolution at all.

 

[USincognito]

This is erroneous. Scientists may be trying to operate this way, but will come to bad conclusions. Observing effects simply won't guarantee you've come to appropriate conclusions regarding cause. I learned this as a five year old shaking my Christmas presents to try to figure out what was inside. It's the same principle. Observation as a word actually means observation.

I wouldn't recommend Kent Hovind as an inspiration for ones rhetorical tactics.

 

[sfs]

Unfortunately the " evidence" is being seen as evidence in light of presuppositions for macroevolution. Those presuppositions are the "hypothesis". Bottomline, we need to see stuff coming alive every now and then.

Stuff coming alive every now and then has nothing at all to do with macroevolution. What are you talking about? What we see is evidence for macroevolution because macroevolution predicts accurately what will be seen, and because no one has yet offered any other explanation for the evidence. Creationism is certainly a complete bust in that department.

We need to see gdnotypes progressing, not just phenotypes expressing.

We see genotypes changing all the time, and we see phenotypes changing as a result. We also see clear evidence of the genetic relationship between different species.

We just aren't seeing it. We can mentally touch over theories all day, but the actual thing isn't actually happening. Throughout history there have been absolutely grand theories explaining all sorts of ideas that seemed to really, really make sense. People even pointed to evidence. Aristotle did this all the time. Later we discovered MANY of these things to be wrong. Sometimes centuries had to go by before people would finally acmit the ideas were wrong. Let's at least admit science might not be done with this yet.

Do you have any examples since the birth of modern science of well-established theories that have proved to be utterly wrong?

 

[USincognito]

Unfortunately the " evidence" is being seen as evidence in light of presuppositions for macroevolution. Those presuppositions are the "hypothesis".

Presuppositions!

Bottomline, we need to see stuff coming alive every now and then.

No we do not.

We need to see genotypes progressing, not just phenotypes expressing.

Genotypes progessing? What the heck does that even mean?

Every human is born with 60 mutations that neither of it's parents had. That a lot of new DNA for selection to work with. Looking to our genomic past we see all sorts of mutations that are evidence for evolution.
- Duplications in SRGAP2 and ARHGAP11 created alleles that fostered brain growth in humans.
- The GULO pseudogene in primates is broken in the same place indicating that it was inherited from a shared common ancestor.
- Cetaceans develop limb buds in utero, but because the interaction between Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2 doesn't function the hind limbs never form giving them their streamlined body shape.
- Two whole genome duplications in stem vertebrates gave rise to the variety of globin alleles and their proteins in modern vertebrates.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Beliefs do not trump well evidenced scientific theories.

The evidence supports ruin/restoration.

 

[crjmurray]

The evidence supports ruin/restoration.

Go on

 

[Loudmouth]

Unfortunately the " evidence" is being seen as evidence in light of presuppositions for macroevolution. Those presuppositions are the "hypothesis".

How so?

Bottomline, we need to see stuff coming alive every now and then. We need to see gdnotypes progressing, not just phenotypes expressing. We just aren't seeing it.

Compare the chimp and human genome. The differences between those genomes are exactly what you are asking for.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I meant the stuff being studied, not the study itself.

It came from all of creation, of course. The stars, the rocks, the genomes. You should learn to trust God's word revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The evidence supports ruin/restoration.

There is, in fact, erosion, decay, extinctions, floods, and so forth. There are also uplifting of land, energy poured in continuously from the sun, birth of new generations on a regular basis.

Why that is taken to be an argument against evolution or deep time is not clear to me. Perhaps you could explain that.

 

[029b10]

Wrong canned response: he asked about evolution, not about atheism.

Exactly, evolution isn't atheism, it's Catholic doctrine.

 

[029b10]

How so?



Compare the chimp and human genome. The differences between those genomes are exactly what you are asking for.

Can a chimp and human reproduce? NO.

The story for years was that man was a direct descendant, when the possibility of that got shot down, they invent the hominid, so is the hominid extinct or imaginary?