OJ innocent or guilty?

[JohnR7]

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.

 

[Aeothen]

The fact that all the evidence fits together so well to create an overall picture of evolution suggests either:
1) A staggeringly well organized secret conspiracy
or
2) That the evidence we have (and the conclusions drawn from such) are valid

Besides, scientists love to show other scientists as being wrong. The person who falsifies evolution will easily win the Nobel prize, so the idea of a conspiracy is, at best, laughable.

 

[dlamberth]

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.

There's a lot of difference between a jury and science. The members of the jury are not allowed to ask question. On the other hand, Science demands that the scientist not only ask questions, but actively test the answers given.

.

 

[MSBS]

So creationists are like the OJ jury?

 

[Sarcopt]

The fact that all the evidence fits together so well to create an overall picture of evolution suggests either:
1) A staggeringly well organized secret conspiracy
or
2) That the evidence we have (and the conclusions drawn from such) are valid

Besides, scientists love to show other scientists as being wrong. The person who falsifies evolution will easily win the Nobel prize, so the idea of a conspiracy is, at best, laughable.

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]

 

[Tenka]

Whoa, a creationist who rationalises the overwhelming scientific support for evolutionary theory by proposing a worldwide conspiracy.

Who would have thought we'd see the day?

 

[JohnR7]

He began to question the flood and finally gave up YEC.

He wrote a book about it.
INDENT]

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

 

[JohnR7]

The fact that all the evidence fits together so well to create an overall picture of evolution suggests either:
1) A staggeringly well organized secret conspiracy
or
2) That the evidence we have (and the conclusions drawn from such) are valid

Besides, scientists love to show other scientists as being wrong. The person who falsifies evolution will easily win the Nobel prize, so the idea of a conspiracy is, at best, laughable.

People falsify the so called evidence all the time. If they handed out noble prizes just for that everyone would have a nobel prize. So according to your theory then evolution must be a "well organized secret conspiracy".

Perhaps you need to rethink this to see if you can come up with some more options other then just these two.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

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

From the review:

Together they moved toward a new understanding of God as having created by means of evolution.

Either they were "indoctronineated", or the evidence goes further than just an old earth.

I wonder which it was?

Funny thing is, I've known several creationists dragged kicking and screaming into accepting evolution by the evidence, but never the other way. I wonder why?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

People falsify the so called evidence all the time. If they handed out noble prizes just for that everyone would have a nobel prize. So according to your theory then evolution must be a "well organized secret conspiracy".

Rubbish. Falsified evidence in science is comparitively rare - certainly, not 'everyone' is guilty of it. Nevertheless, it does happen. And when it happens and is discovered, it's always scientists who discover it.

Perhaps you need to rethink this to see if you can come up with some more options other then just these two.

Perhaps you need to rethink this to see if you can come up with some rational support for your beliefs.

 

[Ozymandius]

So creationists are like the OJ jury?

I had often thought to compare the creationist apologists to OJ himself. They both use what I like to think of as the "OJ Defense". You could have all the evidence in the world, but if you didn't see it with your own eyes, that other stuff doesn't count. And, as single hoax immediately disqualifies the other mounds of indisputable evidence!

 

[ChrisPelletier]

Remember OJ had a civil case after the one we all remember. He lost that one.

I suppose if you had to draw an analogy (which i think this one is a bad one) the case was re-tried, evidence looked at again, and he was convicted. creationism might win out on the short term fooling people with non-sensical ideas, but in the end evolution will come out on top.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Remember OJ had a civil case after the one we all remember. He lost that one.

I suppose if you had to draw an analogy (which i think this one is a bad one) the case was re-tried, evidence looked at again, and he was convicted. creationism might win out on the short term fooling people with non-sensical ideas, but in the end evolution will come out on top.

No offense, but this is a pretty bad analogy. He lost the civil case not because the evidence was looked at again, but because the burden of proof is entirely different under civil law than it is under criminal law.

 

[notto]

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.

So John, do you think that the evidence was planted and that OJ really was innocent?

For your analogy to hold, that would need to be the conclusion you reach.

 

[Grengor]

So JohnR7, just come out straight with it. You think the evidence for Evolution has been refuted right? Like what, the moon dust argument? Or the shrinking sun right? Ooooh who can forget that we're all just indoctrinated, since you know, we're told from birth that Evolution is true and the Bible = against Evolution. Oh wait, isn't it the other way around? People like you told from birth that your personal view of a book is correct and Evolution=Athiesm?

Or who can forget that we're really just in one giant conspiracy, and the dinosaur bones and other evidence was just planted by the Devil or evil mad abortionist scientists?

 

[Arkanin]

As others have said, when you're reduced to acknowledging that there's overwhelming evidence for the ToE but attribute the evidence to a global conspiracy of epic proportions, you have problems.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

Sorry John, this sounds alot more like organizations like AIG and ICR than mainstream scientists... They are the ones using a "Hook or by Crook" approach.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unlike the evidence in the OJ jury, the evidence of evolution is still out there available for anyone to examine.

1. ERV's: Any creationist organizations can run PCR's of human and chimp DNA to find the placement of ERV's. What's stopping them?

2. Dating of rocks: Any creationist can measure the ratio of isotopes in the same rocks that other geologists use to arrive certain dates. What is stopping them? Why do they instead date rocks that are not fit for dating?

3. Fossils: There are still fossils in the ground. If there was a big cover up then why aren't creationists out looking for that cambrian bunny? What's stopping them?

4. Speciation: Scientists have claimed that certain populations have split into two new species. According to John this data has been faked. All a creationist has to do is demonstrate breeding between the two groups. What's stopping them?

What it comes down to is creationists taking pot shots at hard working and honest scientists. They hope that poisoning the well will convince people that a 2,500 year old myth is true. By taking this route (ie making up conspiracy theories) they have shown themselves for what they are, intellectually bankrupt and devoid of any factual backing.

 

[Sarcopt]

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

Perhaps you should read his book first. Then talk about what happened to him.

 

[Phred]

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.

.
​