Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[klutedavid]

Nope, just because one does not understand the sciences does not mean that they are guilty of the sins of the person making rather poor claims.

A poor claim?

I quote, I don't make claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A poor claim?

I quote, I don't make claims.

Yes, you quote by cherry picking. That is making a claim. Those quotes did not appear by magic in this thread.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, you quote by cherry picking. That is making a claim. Those quotes did not appear by magic in this thread.

This is not cherry picking.

Using known distances of 50 galaxies from Earth to refine calculations in Hubble's constant, astronomers estimates the age of the universe at 12.6 billion years.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, you quote by cherry picking. That is making a claim. Those quotes did not appear by magic in this thread.

When I quote reputable scientific estimates, that's not cherry picking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not cherry picking.

Using known distances of 50 galaxies from Earth to refine calculations in Hubble's constant, astronomers estimates the age of the universe at 12.6 billion years.

The way you did it it was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I quote reputable scientific estimates, that's not cherry picking.

If you quoted only one source you might have a valid claim.

 

[klutedavid]

If you quoted only one source you might have a valid claim.

As I said before I'm not the one making claims. You have an issue with Methuselah don't you, there's more than one Methuselah.

Methuselahs SMSS J031300.36−670839.3 (13.6 billion years), BD+17°3248 (13.8 ± 4 billion years), HE0107-5240 (about 13 billion years), HE 1327-2326 (age uncertain), HE 1523-0901 (13.2 billion years), HD 122563 (13 billion years), Sneden’s Star (BPS CS22892-0052, 13 billion years), Caffau’s Star (SDSS J102915+172927, 13 billion years) and Cayrel’s Star (BPS CS31082-0001, 12.5 ± 4 billion years), it is usually SMSS J031300.36−670839.3 that it cited as the oldest star with an accurately determined age. (star-facts.com)

Mwhaaaaaaa.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said before I'm not the one making claims. You have an issue with Methuselah don't you, there's more than one Methuselah.

Methuselahs SMSS J031300.36−670839.3 (13.6 billion years), BD+17°3248 (13.8 ± 4 billion years), HE0107-5240 (about 13 billion years), HE 1327-2326 (age uncertain), HE 1523-0901 (13.2 billion years), HD 122563 (13 billion years), Sneden’s Star (BPS CS22892-0052, 13 billion years), Caffau’s Star (SDSS J102915+172927, 13 billion years) and Cayrel’s Star (BPS CS31082-0001, 12.5 ± 4 billion years), it is usually SMSS J031300.36−670839.3 that it cited as the oldest star with an accurately determined age. (star-facts.com)

Mwhaaaaaaa.

And you still do not see your error. Several posters pointed it out to you, I am not going to bother doing it again.

 

[Ophiolite]

Astronomy shifts its position over time.

You must resist making accusations (insincerely).

Your approach is cynical and distasteful. We are done.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Speaking as someone who's been in a court of law, they're evidence but they're never good evidence. They're heavily suspect and also incredibly hard to properly validate (I should know, I was on a jury for a murder trial a few years back).

Eyewitness testimonies are typically great evidence when you have numerous eye witnesses.

 

[pitabread]

Eyewitness testimonies are typically great evidence when you have numerous eye witnesses.

Eh, not really. There are numerous eye witnesses of all sorts of things including alien space ships, the Loch Ness monster and that Sylvia Browne has psychic powers.

Eye witness testimony is actually kinda crap.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Eh, not really. There are numerous eye witnesses of all sorts of things including alien space ships, the Loch Ness monster and that Sylvia Browne has psychic powers.

Eye witness testimony is actually kinda crap.

This is funny because your only interested in cases where eyewitness testimonies were not credible and ignoring all the cases where they are credible. Like for example the many cases of mass shootings where eyewitness testimonies led to the conviction of these shooters. This just shows that your not willing to be open minded and are only seeking to refute any evidence that is presented without any actual consideration. I never said that all eyewitness testimonies are credible I said that they typically are in the context of a court of law which was the topic of that post.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Eyewitness testimonies are typically great evidence when you have numerous eye witnesses.

Not really. You can have ten people witness an event, and you will get ten different testimonies on that event. And there is also just basic human error with eye witness testimonies that makes them incredibly unreliable in a court of law.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is funny because your only interested in cases where eyewitness testimonies were not credible and ignoring all the cases where they are credible. Like for example the many cases of mass shootings where eyewitness testimonies led to the conviction of these shooters. This just shows that your not willing to be open minded and are only seeking to refute any evidence that is presented without any actual consideration. I never said that all eyewitness testimonies are credible I said that they typically are in the context of a court of law which was the topic of that post.

I don't trust my own eye witness testimony, since it has been shown to be on error on many occassions. Can you tell me why I should trust the eye witness testimony of complete strangers?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Like for example the many cases of mass shootings where eyewitness testimonies led to the conviction of these shooters.

Really? Mass shooting cases are solved by eyewitness testimonies? Do you have some examples? (Setting aside cases where the shooter dies.)

Aren't they usually solved by surveillance cameras and physical evidence?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not really. You can have ten people witness an event, and you will get ten different testimonies on that event. And there is also just basic human error with eye witness testimonies that makes them incredibly unreliable in a court of law.

You might get 10 different testimonies but that does mean they will all contradict each other. For example about 2 months ago my coworker & witnessed a car accident and I called 911 and waited for the police to arrive. After they spoke to the people in the accident and other bystanders I came over and asked if they needed a statement from us. He asked us to describe what we saw and we did and he said no that’s pretty much the same statement we have from all the other eyewitnesses.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't trust my own eye witness testimony, since it has been shown to be on error on many occassions. Can you tell me why I should trust the eye witness testimony of complete strangers?

Nah don’t waste your time.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Really? Mass shooting cases are solved by eyewitness testimonies? Do you have some examples? (Setting aside cases where the shooter dies.)

Aren't they usually solved by surveillance cameras and physical evidence?

I said led to the conviction of the shooters. They point the police to the right person to investigate whereas in most cases if they hadn’t then the police wouldn’t even know who they’re looking for. If eyewitness testimonies are so incredible then why do police and prosecutors ask for their testimony every single time?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I said led to the conviction of the shooters.

That's why I explicitly omitted dead shooters from my query.

They point the police to the right person to investigate whereas in most cases if they hadn’t then the police wouldn’t even know who they’re looking for.

Identification is not necessarily eyewitness testimony. For example:

Cop: Do you recognize the person in this security camera footage.
Teacher: That looks like Kyle.

Then the look at the footage and see that Kyle owned (or drove) a car that looked like the one the shooter emerged from and left in and a street camera later saw had the same license plate. Plus the Kyle's father owned a gun that resembled the one used in the shooting, when found it had been recently fired, and the casings and bullets matched. Kyle's fingerprints were on the gun. Several students report seeing Kyle wearing a red shirt and black jeans that day matching the shooter.

If eyewitness testimonies are so incredible then why do police and prosecutors ask for their testimony every single time?

I don't know that they do. I've never followed the trial of a mass shooter. Testimony can also be used to have an emotional impact on the jury.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You might get 10 different testimonies but that does mean they will all contradict each other. For example about 2 months ago my coworker & witnessed a car accident and I called 911 and waited for the police to arrive. After they spoke to the people in the accident and other bystanders I came over and asked if they needed a statement from us. He asked us to describe what we saw and we did and he said no that’s pretty much the same statement we have from all the other eyewitnesses.

Nearly 20 years ago I was waiting for the light to change to green so I could turn left on to the main street from a side street. Around the time the light changed so that I could proceed two cars approaching from opposite directions on the main street collided in the middle of the intersection. Twenty minutes later when the cop asked me what I'd seen, I told him. He then told me I was wrong and proceeded to discard my testimony. (He didn't take my statement officially.)