Help Me Debunk this Article

[mzungu]

Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

Absolutely HOGWASH. It is impossible to see or observe the present. When you look at the sun you are observing it as it was 8 minutes ago.
Your post is possibly the most unscientific post so far. It even beats talking snakes.

You need to watch a few of the Mayday documentaries and maybe you will understand how science can come to the correct conclusions of past events that were not observed. All actions leave behind evidences. If you just remove your blindfold and bother to learn first then you would not utter such fallacies.

 

[AirPo]

What is a "tag"?

Try this thread -->

 

[Naraoia]

You just do not want us laughing at whatever it is you come up with. Hay Jed look at your cousin ernie !!! I told ya were a monkeys uncle, ha ha ha.

Why should you being infantile upset me?

(And I'm sure you can laugh just as hard at "generic extinct monkey" as "Pondaungia cotteri".)

 

[Delphiki]

Didn’t frogs evolve from tadpoles?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
HAHAHA.
heh.
heeheehAHAHAHAHA.

heheh



















No.

 

[mzungu]

Didn’t frogs evolve from tadpoles?

Laughing baby - YouTube

 

[Elias526]

(And I'm sure you can laugh just as hard at "generic extinct monkey" as "Pondaungia cotteri".)

I think it is the living monkeys that people find amusing, not the dead ones.

 

[Split Rock]

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

Nice quote mining effort. Especially cutting off the next sentence in the paragraph:

"The forensic scientific method is a modified form of the scientific method that compares anamnestic evidence obtained by investigators with observable physical findings discovered at the crime scene, in the crime laboratory, or in the autopsy suite."

All he is saying is that witness testimony and the analysis of witness testimony should be included in the investigation. This is in addition to the scientific analysis of physical evidence. In fact, he utilizes scientific investigation of the physical evidence to establish the accuracy of the eye-witness testimony.

Now, the author does seem to conclude that without eye witness testimony you can't find the truth about the past. Yet, his only evidence for this are examples of mistaken conclusions about things like Shaken Baby Syndrome. "The Shaken Baby Syndrome is only one example of how a mistaken use of the scientific method for past events can lead to years upon years of mistakes and injustices. Many other examples could be cited, but there is not sufficient space in this paper to do so. We cannot calculate the injustices brought about by confused science. Some injustices in time may be remedied, but unfortunately most will not." The exceptions do not make the rule, however. What about the even more injustices brought about via inaccurate or fraudulent eye-witness testimony? The author mentions them briefly, but then seems to dismiss them. One also wonders what this guy does when there is no eye-witness testimony? Does he simply give up? He wouldn't keep his job long then... would he?

In the end, this guy is basically making the case that eye-witness testimony should be combined with forensic analysis of the crime scene. That is fine, where such testimony is available. He provides NO evidence to support the idea that eye witness testimony is necessary other than some specific cases where the wrong conclusions may have come about in the absence of eye witness testimony. As I said, the exceptions do not make the rule.

 

[CabVet]

Nice quote mining effort. Especially cutting off the next sentence in the paragraph:

"The forensic scientific method is a modified form of the scientific method that compares anamnestic evidence obtained by investigators with observable physical findings discovered at the crime scene, in the crime laboratory, or in the autopsy suite."

All he is saying is that witness testimony and the analysis of witness testimony should be included in the investigation. This is in addition to the scientific analysis of physical evidence. In fact, he utilizes scientific investigation of the physical evidence to establish the accuracy of the eye-witness testimony.

Now, the author does seem to conclude that without eye witness testimony you can't find the truth about the past. Yet, his only evidence for this are examples of mistaken conclusions about things like Shaken Baby Syndrome. "The Shaken Baby Syndrome is only one example of how a mistaken use of the scientific method for past events can lead to years upon years of mistakes and injustices. Many other examples could be cited, but there is not sufficient space in this paper to do so. We cannot calculate the injustices brought about by confused science. Some injustices in time may be remedied, but unfortunately most will not." The exceptions do not make the rule, however. What about the even more injustices brought about via inaccurate or fraudulent eye-witness testimony? The author mentions them briefly, but then seems to dismiss them. One also wonders what this guy does when there is no eye-witness testimony? Does he simply give up? He wouldn't keep his job long then... would he?

In the end, this guy is basically making the case that eye-witness testimony should be combined with forensic analysis of the crime scene. That is fine, where such testimony is available. He provides NO evidence to support the idea that eye witness testimony is necessary other than some specific cases where the wrong conclusions may have come about in the absence of eye witness testimony. As I said, the exceptions do not make the rule.

Not to mention he is talking about scientific evidence as used in a courtroom, not scientific evidence for research.

 

[plindboe]

Didn’t frogs evolve from tadpoles?

Stuff like this makes me wonder whether certain creationists lack the capacity to feel shame or embarrassment. If I say something stupid I feel embarrassed, so that's why I try to make an effort to say things I know I can back up, and if I'm in doubt I look it up before posting.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Stuff like this makes me wonder whether certain creationists lack the capacity to feel shame or embarrassment. If I say something stupid I feel embarrassed, so that's why I try to make an effort to say things I know I can back up, and if I'm in doubt I look it up before posting.

Peter

Is that the way you learned?

Did your cholerage professor(s) shame [or intimidate] you into learning?

 

[Non sequitur]

Is that the way you learned?

Did your cholerage professor(s) shame [or intimidate] you into learning?

Mine never did that.

If yours did, I can see why you'd be bitter and angry. Did that happen to you?

 

[Doveaman]

Oh no, we are all consummate liars. I'm lying to you right now.

Oh no, I’m not calling you liars. I’m simply letting you know what I’m told by you guys. I’m told a scientific theory is never proven to be true. So you can never tell the truth, can you?

By your reasoning, you could dismiss every single scientific idea anyone ever held.

I only dismiss those scientific ideas that contradict the Bible.

With the minor difference that you can't repeat his "experiments".

But we do repeat what Jesus did. And we obtain results just as He predicted. Every time.

Um... no? Where on earth did you get that idea?

And even if they did, what's that have to do with understanding evolutionary theory?

Probably nothing, since the evolution of tadpoles into frogs is an observed fact and not an imaginary theory.

And anyone who (1) calls it an assumption (2) doesn't get the difference between similarity and patterns of similarity should probably familiarise with the concept before criticising it.

Humans evolving from apes is an assumption. Frogs evolving from tadpoles is an observed fact. See above.

 

[Blayz]

Frogs evolving from tadpoles is an observed fact. See above.

This is an excellent argument, I encourage you to use it more often, see if you can get the other creationists to use it as well. It's almost as good as Bananaman's stuff.

 

[Doveaman]

This is an excellent argument

Naraoia doesn't think so. But thanks for noticing.

 

[Non sequitur]

Humans evolving from apes is an assumption. Frogs evolving from tadpoles is an observed fact. See above.

In biology, evolve is developing by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition.

That's "growing", since a tadpole is the larval stage in the life cycle of an amphibian.

Ape life cycles don't end at "... now a human".

 

[CabVet]

Probably nothing, since the evolution of tadpoles into frogs is an observed fact and not an imaginary theory.
Humans evolving from apes is an assumption. Frogs evolving from tadpoles is an observed fact. See above.

Tadpoles don't evolve into frogs, tadpoles develop into frogs, huge difference. Please learn something about evolution before you try to criticize it, you are just sounding silly pushing this point now. What is next? You will say that humans "evolve" from babies?

 

[CabVet]

This is an excellent argument, I encourage you to use it more often, see if you can get the other creationists to use it as well. It's almost as good as Bananaman's stuff.

Naraoia doesn't think so. But thanks for noticing.

 

[sfs]

Buffy: "Sarcasm accomplishes nothing, Giles."
Giles: "It's sort of an end in itself."

 

[bobsterInJapan]

Hi! I'm new here. I'm another ignorant creationist/non-evolutionist. How's it going?

Any how, I reckon tadpole eggs have all the DNA for developing into a frog, whereas an alleged ape/monkey-like creature does not have the DNA of a homosapian (a person).

It is alleged that once lucy the monkey-dude-girl started walking about on her legs, she allowed her arms to be free, and eventually enabled her descendents to eat meat and stuff, to get more protein, grow more of a brain, and get really clever - so clever that descendents were able to dream up such a theory.

Anyhow, is it possible to receive nicer DNA by eating food with this nicer DNA in it?
Also, it would be really helpful if someone could advise how waiter/waitress could evolve a third arm.

 

[AV1611VET]

You will say that humans "evolve" from babies?

Well, I think the default position in higher aceldama is that humans "develop" from fetal tissue, with the fetal tissue turning into a human being literally in a moment's time ... that moment being called "childbirth".

I could be wrong though ... I certainly hope so.