Monkeys to Men

[Smidlee]

That may be, but it has been shown time after time that sites like Answers In Genesis and ICR are ready to lie for Jesus. Holding those groups in contempt is not bias since they have earned it. I hope you are aware that both of those sites require their workers to abandon the scientific method if they want to work there.

I rarely ever go to Answers in Genesis nor ICR as I think the best evidence against evolution is from the evolutionist. I go to ID sites more often than them since most of them are still evolutionist like Behe.

 

[Smidlee]

It seems to me that it was evidence that showed the person was framed.
Initial evidence supported the hypothesis of guilt.
New evidence then showed how the hypothesis of guilt was wrong.

How is this not evidence based reasoning?
The evidence didn't change, indeed. More and better evidence rather turned up.

Bingo. The evidence didn't change but the interpretation of the evidence did.
Thus all evidence has to have someone to interpreted it and we interpret things by our worldview , beliefs.

 

[Smidlee]

No, it really really doesn't.

That's only on TV.

Didn't you just give me a whole anecdote about the nature of evidence and a court case?
Isn't a court case a setting where one tries to figure out what exactly happened at some time in the past?

Now you're telling us that that can't be done?
So if a murder happens with no eyewitnesses, then the one who did it can never be caught? Is that really what you are saying?

And in court it comes down to the views of 12 people. Sometimes those 12 get it wrong. That's the best we can do. If the man is guilty and the court finds him innocent the truth is he is still guilty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I rarely ever go to Answers in Genesis nor ICR as I think the best evidence against evolution is from the evolutionist. I go to ID sites more often than them since most of them are still evolutionist like Behe.

But you have never shown any evidence against evolution. And Behe is hardly reliable, and worse if you go to Behe for answers then you should believe what he believes and he accepts common descent. He only believes that evolution could not have happened without God's help. Otherwise he still accepts evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd say that about settles it then.

If you can't trust your own eyes, you're surely not going to trust someone else's eyes, are you?

So I guess the YOU WERE THERE? argument doesn't apply to you?

Are you aware that sometimes, people see (or think to see) certain thing which they then completely misunderstand?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Bingo.

You say "bingo", but in reality, this flies in the face of your very own claims.

The evidence didn't change but the interpretation of the evidence did.

No. NEW evidence came up.

Thus all evidence has to have someone to interpreted it and we interpret things by our worldview , beliefs.

And then you test your interpretation. You don't just run with it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's only on TV.

No, it's not. Criminals are caught for crimes without eye-witnesses all the time.
Sometimes even in spite of "eye-witnesses" saying otherwise.

And in court it comes down to the views of 12 people. Sometimes those 12 get it wrong. That's the best we can do. If the man is guilty and the court finds him innocent the truth is he is still guilty.

1. Courts are not a proper analogy for the scientific method. If you wish to make a point about how science is done, try finding an example from...you know.... science.

2. You didn't answer my question: So if a murder happens with no eyewitnesses, then the one who did it can never be caught?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you aware that sometimes, people see (or think to see) certain thing which they then completely misunderstand?

Yes.

 

[Smidlee]

You say "bingo", but in reality, this flies in the face of your very own claims.



No. NEW evidence came up.

New evidence didn't change the old evidence. All evidence has to be interpreted.

And then you test your interpretation. You don't just run with it.

That what everybody does.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes.

Then surely you agree that one should be sceptical about testimony?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then surely you agree that one should be sceptical about testimony?

Right down to my boolean standards.

 

[DogmaHunter]

New evidence didn't change the old evidence. All evidence has to be interpreted.

It actually did, in this case.

In your example, the new evidence shows that the person was framed. Which means that the "old" evidence, wasn't actually evidence in the first place. It was fraudulent. Deliberatly misleading.

Having said that, there's nothing wrong with being wrong and correcting yourself in light of new evidence.

Remember, this whole exchange started when you yapped about how science isn't evidence based but faith based.
Since then, with your court example, all you've been doing is showing that it's actually indeed all about the available evidence.

So I'm starting to wonder what exactly you are arguing against...

 

[Smidlee]

It actually did, in this case.

In your example, the new evidence shows that the person was framed. Which means that the "old" evidence, wasn't actually evidence in the first place. It was fraudulent. Deliberatly misleading.

Having said that, there's nothing wrong with being wrong and correcting yourself in light of new evidence.

Remember, this whole exchange started when you yapped about how science isn't evidence based but faith based.
Since then, with your court example, all you've been doing is showing that it's actually indeed all about the available evidence.

So I'm starting to wonder what exactly you are arguing against...

Science is based on truths or axiom that can't be used to prove by science. Thus is evolution is the foundation of biology then evolution is an idol ; a religion since it explains away the scientist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Bingo. The evidence didn't change but the interpretation of the evidence did.
Thus all evidence has to have someone to interpreted it and we interpret things by our worldview , beliefs.

-_- understand that evolution sprung from people who were once believers, and were biased in favor of faith. It doesn't matter how heavy the bias someone has, there will always be some kind of observation or evidence that can shake even the strongest of beliefs, and the fact is, no matter how you want to "interpret" evidence, there is only so far it can be stretched before you are lying to yourself and everyone else.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Science is based on truths or axiom that can't be used to prove by science. Thus is evolution is the foundation of biology then evolution is an idol ; a religion since it explains away the scientist.

No, we do not worship evolution. It can be disproven just like any other theory, and if someone did disprove it, they would be showered with tons of prizes and renown. Science is about change, not about stagnating on the same ideas. View the fact that evolution has only grown stronger as a theory over time as a sign of its accuracy, not as some kind of stubborn desire to keep supporting it. I personally have no allegiance to evolution, if someone disproves it, that will certainly affect my work, but I won't break down or try to keep defending it. That would be pointless, actually, worse than pointless, because if I, as a scientist, could not accept a theory, no matter which one, being properly disproven, then I have shown that I am incapable of working in that field professionally.

 

[AirPo]

I do indeed.

But why can't it mean both?

It can mean whatever you make up for it to mean. That's the beauty of scripture and interpretation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science is based on truths or axiom that can't be used to prove by science.

What are those axioms?

Thus is evolution is the foundation of biology then evolution is an idol ;

How does the second sentence follow from the first sentence? You are not making sense.

How is evolution different from physics, engineering and all the other sciences that use the same axioms as evolution does?

a religion since it explains away the scientist.

Huh?