God used Evolution to create man

[Mr Strawberry]

WHO CLAIMS THAT?!
You are the only one who ever brought this up!
What are you on about?

He doesn't know. He's just lonely.

 

[lasthero]

WHO CLAIMS THAT?!
You are the only one who ever brought this up!
What are you on about?

AV is just the annoying kid in class who used to shoot spitballs at the back of everyone's head. He wants to rile you up. You're giving him what he wants.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know who gave you the idea that scientists have "super-vision"...

You did:

Even if they don't have any eye witness, because genetics is BETTER than eye-witness accounts!
Which makes evolution superior to eye-witness accounts, because genetics WORKS!

 

[RichardParker]

You did:

Funny. Because the quote you've given shows me saying that eye-witnessing is NOT a great thing.
*lol*

So, you've taken a comment of mine where I say that eye-witness accounts aren't reliable and turned it into:

"He said these people have 20/10 vision"!

How did you even do that?
That's remarkably wrong!

 

[RichardParker]

AV is just the annoying kid in class who used to shoot spitballs at the back of everyone's head. He wants to rile you up. You're giving him what he wants.

Yeah, seems that way.
Or maybe he's just really that uninformed.

Either way, I'm having time at the moment, so I will correct him, maybe still a bit further, when he is that wrong

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh! That's what you ment!

Yaaa ... that's what I ment.

Imagine that?

You scientific methodists can't recognize your own writing, can you?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about something magical and crazy again (like super-vision-scientists).

For the record, I call those "mental blocks."

They usually appear where the words "magic" are used.

 

[lasthero]

Yeah, seems that way.
Or maybe he's just really that uninformed.

Or both. Most likely both.

 

[RichardParker]

Yaaa ... that's what I ment.

Imagine that?

You scientific methodists can't recognize your own writing, can you?

I'm still missing your point.
Ok, so we found something new.
Cool.
And that's a probelm becaaaaaaaause...?

I mean, it's called "progress". That's bad now?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm still missing your point.
Ok, so we found something new.
Cool.
And that's a probelm becaaaaaaaause...?

I mean, it's called "progress". That's bad now?

Wow, AV found himself an easy target. Some advice, keep your cool here.

 

[bhsmte]

Wow, AV found himself an easy target. Some advice, keep your cool here.

These things do have a shelf life though, depending on the participant.

 

[PsychoSarah]

These things do have a shelf life though, depending on the participant.

Yeah, there is quite a range to that, I have seen everything from people who never are really phased by him to those that leave in a rage quit

 

[DerelictJunction]

Wow, AV found himself an easy target. Some advice, keep your cool here.

At least he's not stuck in a Just-a-loop.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least he's not stuck in a Just-a-loop.

That reminds me of my Tilt-a-Whirl challenge: 1

 

[EternalDragon]

So what?
Who said that the system was perfect?
BUT we still use it! Why? Because what you describe here is mainly a problem with the people misunsing the system and making mistakes!
But you are honstly trying to make the case, that we shouldn't use evidence anymore? Only convictions with eye-witness accounts?
Ok...
I'm thankfull then that you aren't in charge of our legal system then

Eye witness accounts are demonstrable the least reliable kind of evidence there is!
And if we have only eye-witness accounts from some annonymous dudes, that speak about magical things... then be asured, this won't be used to convict anybody!
On the other hand, if genetics shows, that the DNA that was found shows that there was a person who was related to the victim at the crime scene... then you can be sure, that they will go and look in the among the family members for a suspect! Even if they don't have any eye witness, because genetics is BETTER than eye-witness accounts!
Which makes evolution superior to eye-witness accounts, because genetics WORKS!

Honest to god, you have taken a criminal justice course... and you don't understand how important evidence is to determine what has happend in the past, and you don't know how unreliable eye-witness accounts are?

This scares me.

Again, comparing evolution evidence with crime scene evidence is just completely off. They are two entirely different things.

And I suppose police should not question anyone at the scene of a crime or accident? Really? I just recently had a motorcycle accident and guess what? The police officer asked me what happened and put it in his report!

I think you are confusing individual eyewitness testimony on the stand to multiple eyewitness questioning. Yes, I know how important evidence is, that is why I comment about suspect scientific findings that are touted as fact.

 

[RichardParker]

Again, comparing evolution evidence with crime scene evidence is just completely off. They are two entirely different things.

I didn't really compare them.
I compared them in one regards only:
The creationists usually argue that "you can't know because you weren't there!"
And this also applies to many, many crime scenes, where we still were able to solve the crime.
So even creationists, on a certain level, understand that the "You weren't there, so you can't know" is a stupid argument that doesn't hold up.

And I suppose police should not question anyone at the scene of a crime or accident? Really? I just recently had a motorcycle accident and guess what? The police officer asked me what happened and put it in his report!

Not at all what I said, so I don't need to respond to that.
And yet I will, because you make a good example here:
Yes, the police will question the people around there. But you know what?
If they found the wrecks of two blue cars there, they won't take any eye-witness seriously who tells them that it was a bike that hit a horse and killed the horse.
Phyiscal evidence trumps eye-witness account.
And the physical evidence for evolution trumps the story in some old book.

 

[madaz]

But let's go with that because you have actually accepted assumptions that man wrote down about how life came about. Without anyone even being there to see it.

You are describing your own position here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, comparing evolution evidence with crime scene evidence is just completely off. They are two entirely different things.

How are they different?

And I suppose police should not question anyone at the scene of a crime or accident? Really? I just recently had a motorcycle accident and guess what? The police officer asked me what happened and put it in his report!

Police can't use forensic evidence for crimes that have no witnesses?

I think you are confusing individual eyewitness testimony on the stand to multiple eyewitness questioning. Yes, I know how important evidence is, that is why I comment about suspect scientific findings that are touted as fact.

You ignore the evidence, and instead cling to a story in a book that is contradicted by all of the evidence.

 

[madaz]

Nice try but his birth was recorded,<snip>

Nice try, but no, his birth wasn't recorded, in fact, not a single scholar knows exactly where or when his birth occurred.

<snip>his parents existed, and his followers wrote down what they saw and what Jesus said.

We have no contemporary accounts from Jesus followers. It would seem nobody noticed Jesus until many decades after his demise.

You guys are really grasping here.

Once again, you are just describing/projecting your own position here.

 

[madaz]

Do you reject Phlogiston theory?

No offense, but why don't you reject the theory of gravity while you're at it?

(Note: For the record, I know Phlogiston theory is a busted theory. It has been replaced by Combustion theory. Thus I assume your answer is going to be YES. But I'll wait and see if you get my point.)

AV, modern evolutionary theory is based on evidence derived from chemistry, physics, geology, and other disciplines. Because of the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, it is recognized and endorsed as a key principle of science, on par with the atomic theory of matter, and as a central theme of science education by all major scientific societies.

Evolutionary theory is NOT in the same precarious position as the phlogiston theory, no matter how much you desire it to be.

They are incomparable.

 

[Gottservant]

It makes sense to say God used Evolution to create the flesh of man, not that He used it to create man.