Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
Bingo. The evidence didn't change but the interpretation of the evidence did.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.
That's only on TV.No, it really really doesn't.
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.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?
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.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.
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?
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.
That's only on TV.
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.
Yes.Are you aware that sometimes, people see (or think to see) certain thing which they then completely misunderstand?
New evidence didn't change the old evidence. All evidence has to be interpreted.You say "bingo", but in reality, this flies in the face of your very own claims.
No. NEW evidence came up.
That what everybody does.And then you test your interpretation. You don't just run with it.
Yes.
Right down to my boolean standards.Then surely you agree that one should be sceptical about testimony?
New evidence didn't change the old evidence. All evidence has to be interpreted.
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.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...
-_- 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.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.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?