Monkeys to Men

[Mr Strawberry]

The answer is in my post.

And the answer doesn't give you pause for thought?

 

[AV1611VET]

And the answer doesn't give you pause for thought?

As I say, chief, I don't stand around scratching my head over this stuff.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

As I say, chief, I don't stand around scratching my head over this stuff.

Well, take it slowly, if it was after the ascension, what would that imply?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, take it slowly, if it was after the ascension, what would that imply?

That they didn't write it in their diaries in real time?

Keep in mind, I don't think they wrote it at all.

And if they did, I'm sure Saul confiscated it in his door-to-door persecution campaign.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That they didn't write it in their diaries in real time?

Keep in mind, I don't think they wrote it at all.

And if they did, I'm sure Saul confiscated it in his door-to-door persecution campaign.

Concentrate on the 'after' bit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Concentrate on the 'after' bit.

Why don't you just go ahead and make your point?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Why don't you just go ahead and make your point?

Because I'd like you to work it out for yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because I'd like you to work it out for yourself.

Sure thing:

The Bible says it, that settles it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Sure thing.

The Bible says it, that settles it.

Well, that's the point isn't it. Even your favourite book pulls the rug from under you.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

double post

 

[Smidlee]

Paul wrote there were over 500 witnesses including disciples.

Okay, so, just so we're clear, you think that anything for which there is no eyewitness testimony is completely speculative? That we have no way of making clear inferences about the past?

Even forensic science needs eye witness of a crime.

Which testimony? I mean, you say Paul recorded over 500 eyewitnesses, but Paul was not himself present.

The same in a courtroom where the jury heard the testimony of 500 eyewitnesses.

 

[Smidlee]

So no reliable account of the supposed 500 witnesses. Paul was not a witness himself.

That's more witness than all those claims made by evolutionists.

 

[Smidlee]

Strange then that none of them wrote down what they saw.

Watch out as that's a double edge sword you have there. I wouldn't want you to cut yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's more witness than all those claims made by evolutionists.

Wrong. The Earth is an unbiased witness. Every fossil found is an observation of life that existed in the past. You have the least reliable of evidence, we have the most reliable evidence. Eye witnesses may convince people that have no understanding of the nature of evidence, it rarely convinces professionals.

 

[The Cadet]

Even forensic science needs eye witness of a crime.

No, actually, forensic science has led to a reduction of reliance on eyewitness testimony, as it is very often flawed, biased, and flat-out wrong. And anyone can claim that there were eyewitnesses. If I go to court and say, "I know 500 people who watched him kill that guy, and no, I won't tell you who they are", it probably won't come off as particularly impressive.

But okay, you know what, Paul spoke of 500 eyewitnesses. Let's assume for just a moment that Paul was telling the truth. Let's assume that he didn't make it up, that the document is correctly attributed, and that there really were 500 people there who saw Jesus.

What do you think of Travis Walton, who claims to have been abducted by aliens? What do you think of his eyewitness testimony? What about the countless others (doubtless far more than 500) who make concordant claims about their alien abductions? Is this good evidence that we are getting visits from alien life?

 

[Smidlee]

Wrong. The Earth is an unbiased witness. Every fossil found is an observation of life that existed in the past. You have the least reliable of evidence, we have the most reliable evidence. Eye witnesses may convince people that have no understanding of the nature of evidence, it rarely convinces professionals.

The fossil record never supported Darwin theory since his tree of life is upside down and the fossil record is stasis. So I totally disagree and see the fossil is good evidence against evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

No, actually, forensic science has led to a reduction of reliance on eyewitness testimony, as it is very often flawed, biased, and flat-out wrong. And anyone can claim that there were eyewitnesses. If I go to court and say, "I know 500 people who watched him kill that guy, and no, I won't tell you who they are", it probably won't come off as particularly impressive.

But okay, you know what, Paul spoke of 500 eyewitnesses. Let's assume for just a moment that Paul was telling the truth. Let's assume that he didn't make it up, that the document is correctly attributed, and that there really were 500 people there who saw Jesus.

What do you think of Travis Walton, who claims to have been abducted by aliens? What do you think of his eyewitness testimony? What about the countless others (doubtless far more than 500) who make concordant claims about their alien abductions? Is this good evidence that we are getting visits from alien life?

http://www.criminaljusticeprograms.com/interview/thomas-young/
Q: What kind of changes have there been in forensic pathology in the last few years?

"Science, natural and physical science, has led to a great deal of progress. Forensic science; however, has been a major disappointment. In many respects, it's one of the leading causes for the incarceration of innocent people. Science people for the federal government have done a big study of this and back in 2009 released Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States. It has been recognized that forensic science doesn't work well. You can get scientists from all different points of view and come up with all kinds of answers. That's not really reliable science; we wouldn't have been able to put a man on the moon with this kind of chaos."

 

[crjmurray]

Even forensic science needs eye witness of a crime.


The same in a courtroom where the jury heard the testimony of 500 eyewitnesses.

No....forensics in no way requires eyewitnesses....

 

[crjmurray]

http://www.criminaljusticeprograms.com/interview/thomas-young/
Q: What kind of changes have there been in forensic pathology in the last few years?

"Science, natural and physical science, has led to a great deal of progress. Forensic science; however, has been a major disappointment. In many respects, it's one of the leading causes for the incarceration of innocent people. Science people for the federal government have done a big study of this and back in 2009 released Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States. It has been recognized that forensic science doesn't work well. You can get scientists from all different points of view and come up with all kinds of answers. That's not really reliable science; we wouldn't have been able to put a man on the moon with this kind of chaos."

Young is a joke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fossil record never supported Darwin theory since his tree of life is upside down and the fossil record is stasis. So I totally disagree and see the fossil is good evidence against evolution.

What are you talking about? Clearly you have no understanding of the fossil record. You have to stop reading the garbage at lying creationist sites.

In fact you probably need to learn what scientific evidence is. Then you would not make such an obvious mistake.