- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I would go more by what people say, than an avatar. Since Avi bases his concepts on the word of God, it is not comical.
Upvote
0
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 would go more by what people say, than an avatar. Since Avi bases his concepts on the word of God, it is not comical.Only as comic relief and/or a cautionary tale for Christians.
Now, back to the OP....
That's what Mohammad thought too, and he got accused of being a false prophet.... you can just make stuff up as you go along.
Who? Mohammad or Joseph Smith?Poor guy.
In Mohammad's case, his "damaged psyche" resulted in the martyrdom of the Christians he was trying to buffalo.Anyone who is called a false prophet.
That has got to really damage the psyche.
Christianity is the only thing scientists attack with fervor throughout the ages ... not learning from their mistakes though.
In a post filled with with the usual rubbish, this stands out as more than just wrong. You have had it explained to you many times why the above is a false. To continue to make statements that you know are untrue comes under the heading of deliberate lying. Do you do it because you think that lying for jesus is an end unto itself, or is it because you know you won't ever get banned from the forum for deliberately breaking the rules?
Then explain to me please why atheists & agnostics prefer to use science as a means of pwning the Bible.In a post filled with with the usual rubbish, this stands out as more than just wrong.
In a post filled with with the usual rubbish.... get banned from the forum for deliberately breaking the rules?
I am sorry but that statement is pure idiocy.
All events are by definition in the past when we observe them. All we are doing is using different methods of observing those events. You seem to have a strange prejudice for the present, but every physicist knows there is no such thing as "now". No matter how many times you repeat that line about "the scientific method is not applicable to past events" you will be wrong.
Tell that to forensic experts at a murder scene. There is no point in gathering any DNA, that happened in the past! I mean really. Doesn't that sound more than foolish to you?
I am a bit ashamed for you. As Christians we are supposed to be honest.
Though I am a poor and miserable sinner, I try to be both honest and correct.
My source seems honest enough.
"The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. "
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method
"In other words, two different witness accounts are consistent with the same physical evidence. Which account is true and which is false? We do not know." Heartland Forensic Pathology: Putting It All Together: The Logic Behind the Forensic Scientific Method and the Inferential Test
They are saying that forensic methods that they use are not the standard scientific method but a modified one used to verify witness statements. A somewhat different thing than what is being discussed, that science can make statements about past events. If science couldn't, you would have to throw out geology, all of the astronomy related disciplines and archeology just for examples. They are all based on reconstructing past events using scientific methods.The forensic scientific method is a modified form of the scientific method that compares anamnestic evidence obtained by investigators with observable physical findings discovered at the crime scene, in the crime laboratory, or in the autopsy suite. This comparison verifies if witnesses or suspects are telling the truth about what they witnessed. The method is a powerful technique for determining the truth of past events.
I agree. One would have to throw them out. I did. It will always come down to that. This is why I cannot see any other possible strategy for the creation side, but to dismiss present state based science for the past.... that science can make statements about past events. If science couldn't, you would have to throw out geology, all of the astronomy related disciplines and archeology just for examples. ...
You left off a little. In the sentences following the abstract says
They are saying that forensic methods that they use are not the standard scientific method but a modified one used to verify witness statements. A somewhat different thing than what is being discussed, that science can make statements about past events. If science couldn't, you would have to throw out geology, all of the astronomy related disciplines and archeology just for examples. They are all based on reconstructing past events using scientific methods.
Think through what you are saying, do you assert that these scientific disciplines are bogus in some way?
Dizredux
You really are missing the point. The forensics expert is saying
that science is useless in determining past events.
I think your posts boil down to this one assertion. So lets us start with Geology. Tell me how scientists in the field of geology can do scientific work without being able to deal with past events?Any claims about past events are untestable.
Why do we need a consensus on what oil is or how it got there to find oil? The nature of oil is much more in the area of biochemistry not geology.People claim they can find oil in the ground. There is no consensus on what oil is or how it got anywhere. And we have plenty of oil to test, so go figure how my statement is wrong.
Then explain to me please why atheists & agnostics prefer to use science as a means of pwning the Bible.
You really are missing the point. The forensics expert is saying
that science is useless in determining past events. However
because the options of liar to twist past events is so limited
even science can be used to determine lies.
Science alone can never hope to recreate all possible stories and
verify or rule out each one for a past event.
But if there are only one or two possibilities, it can sort one false one.
In those fields, science can make predictions and test them.
Any claims about past events are untestable.
People claim they can find oil in the ground.
There is no consensus on what oil is or how it got anywhere.
And we have plenty of oil to test, so go figure how my
statement is wrong.
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?