OJ innocent or guilty?

[Jan87676]

.

 

[Phred]

John wonders about the evidence for evolution but of course doesn't bother to question his own beliefs.

 

[Avtoritet]

about OJ
he got guily on civil and Not guilty on Criminal

that is because in civil cases you need to be about 60% percent sure but in criminal you need to be beond reasonable doubt. wich is about 99%

 

[Dr.GH]

I know a guy who thought he was going to infiltrate 'the evolution conspiracy'. He enrolled in a Ph.D. in palaeontology at McGill and completed the degree as a YEC. Later, while doing fieldwork as a postdoctoral fellow, he was looking at successive beds of rock that all contained footprints. He began to question the flood and finally gave up YEC.

He wrote a book about it.
INDENT]

Looked interesting so I bought it.

 

[Ledifni]

He may have converted from YEC to OEC beliefs. But to convert to evolution or TE he would have had to be indoctronineated.

That's an impressive word, John. I'm sitting here trying to pronounce it and it gets more impressive every time I try.

I sure do hope no bad evilutionists ever indoctronineate you. You might stop using words like 'indoctronineated."

 

[JohnR7]

John wonders about the evidence for evolution but of course doesn't bother to question his own beliefs.

I question my beliefs. I started off a YEC, but then when I began to look at the evidence I saw that the OEC or GAP position makes more sense. But that does not mean I will throw caution to the wind and become a TE.

 

[LogicChristian]

The OP is hilarious, it's always great to hear again about the 150 year "evilutionist" conspiracy.

 

[12volt_man]

Does anyone ever wonder why OJ walked and was not convicted? The main reason is because the jury felt that the evidence had been planted. The police department set him up. Because it sure looked like they had plenty of evidence to prove their case. They had the glove in his back yard, they even had the victoms blood in his car. But the defense was able to convince the jury that it had all been planted or falsifed in a attempt for the detectives to prove their case against OJ.

I wonder about evolution sometimes if some of the evidence people use for it is just as planted and manipulated. Oh, I am sure that the detectives in their own mind were convinced that OJ was guilty and that there was nothing wrong with tampering with the evidence to prove their case. The problem is that the jury did not see it that way.

Because the prosecution's evidence was overwhelming and OJ had no alibi, plus motive and a history of violence toward his wife, I can only come to the conclusion that he is guilty.

However, he was found not guilty in the criminal trial, so I will honor their decision.

 

[Anovah]

I wonder about evolution sometimes if some of the evidence people use for it is just as planted and manipulated. Oh, I am sure that the detectives in their own mind were convinced that OJ was guilty and that there was nothing wrong with tampering with the evidence to prove their case. The problem is that the jury did not see it that way.

I like Loudmouth's post. If anyone is planting or manipulating evidence, it's God (Speaking from a theistic paradigm).

 

[MSBS]

But that does not mean I will throw caution to the wind and become a TE.

Come on man, live a little! Get wild!

 

[Loudmouth]

I question my beliefs. I started off a YEC, but then when I began to look at the evidence I saw that the OEC or GAP position makes more sense. But that does not mean I will throw caution to the wind and become a TE.

Look at my post above, John. The evidence is still out there, not locked away in a vault. For your analogy to hold true, scientists would have to insert ERV's into every ape and primate species in certain spots, world wide. Do you really think they are doing this.

They would also have to remove all those bunny rabbits from every Cambrian deposit world wide. Do you really think they have done this?

Scientists have not planted the evidence. Either retract the statement or tell me how the above scenarios are possible.

 

[Grengor]

They're not, John has been on a run of grasping for straws lately.

 

[Dr.GH]

Religions all have some hidden "holy of holy" spot. Science has none. In the face of strong controversy, labs and even personal notebooks must be made public, and not merely to other scientists. I recall one instance where the slight-of-hand expert, John Randi was invited to be part of a laboratory examination team. Handwriting and forensic document experts have also been invovled. Science treats lies very seriously. (But, it is still always possible to 'pull a fast one' which is why replicating observations is still the key requirement). Plus, it is very difficult to tell the difference between scientific incompetence and fraud.

 

[EvoDan]

... But that does not mean I will throw caution to the wind ...

Cautious in case of what?

 

[wagsbags]

Funny... the creationist rationalizes that science isn't real because it's a conspiracy. People telling other people what to believe.

Does anyone know of a single instance in which a person found Christianity without being told about it by another?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Never has happened and never will. Any claim Christians make of this happening always depend on the person at least knowing of christianity.

 

[wagsbags]

I think the idea that evolutionists are willfully planting evidence goes along with how much christians insist that everyone believes in God, some just deny him. It couldn't possibly occur to them that the majority of atheists really just don't give a **** either way. They're really not interested in religion either way. But that's harder to explain away...