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.
Well in that case...
No, everyone is entitled to present their view.
Well you seem to dissmiss him for suppoedly being biased
Of course you have to say that. You would be in a bit of a quandary with your own beleifs if you considered their position to be sound.The problem with creationists is you have nothing
What have I repeated? You are just making that up. In fact your entire post is just an emotional rant.Are you trying to convince us, or yourselves when you keep repeating pratt's debunked decades ago?
Then you read it wrong.
I dismissed him for not being an objective asssessment of the Creation v Evolution issue.
Of course you have to say that. You would be in a bit of a quandary with your own beleifs if you considered their position to be sound.
What have I repeated? You are just making that up. In fact your entire post is just an emotional rant.
And can you give a single creationist that by the definition you give of ken miller is objective?
Yes he certainly does think they are wrong. That is quite obvious.Again doesn't it occur he is a critic of them because they are wrong?
He isnt objective - he is absolutely one sided to his view, its really that simple.You act like him being a critic some how makes him not objective
Gee - have a look at your previous post.Seems like alot of hand waving.
It would take me a month to reply to all your hand waving.And emotional rant? How about responding to points rather then more hand waving?
These are great points, Mindlight. The problem with modern courts, unfortunately, is their adversity toward miracles. I don't think this should be the case, but unfortunately it is. Simon Greenleaf is one of our country's most prominent law scholars in the area of evidence. And he actually concluded the the resurrection of Christ passes legal muster. In essence he argued in his book for the evidential basis of this miracle.
But I doubt the legal minds of today are that sharp. In regard to origins, scripture reveals six full days of creative miracles, and many prominent subsequent miracles. The testimonial evidence is there, but unfortunately, this goes against modern scientism, which dismisses miraculous causes a priori.
Much like a criminal trial, historical geology is concerned with determining past events. There are different levels of certainty. Events we directly observe through sensory perception are the most certain. Our knowledge of events we directly observe is as certain as any knowledge. We can only see or directly observe the present. As humans we cannot see the future and we cannot see the past. But past events can leave records. We can only know what happened in the past by observing these records in the present. We can no more "see" the past than we can the future. We often think we can see the past because our brains make a vivid record of the past we have experienced called memory. But our memories are not even very good records of the past, compared to things like photographs, audio recordings etc. Our knowledge of past events depends on the quality of the records, not the amount of time since the event occurred. We know there were Trilobites in the Cambrian with more certainty than we know who shot JFK. Both events left records. I won't go into how uncertain the JFK evidence is. It's been done! But the records trilobites left when they crept along ancient mud is very simple and there for all to see. The evidence that Cambrian rocks are roughly 500 million years old is more complicated, and not based on direct observation. But the case has been argued convincingly in court and in the technical literature.
The case for Creationism hasn't won in the court of law since the Scopes trial 85 years ago.
Oh yeah, and the court of law allows forensic evidence -- that is, evidence for unobservable, unrepeatable events in the past. The same type of evidence that supports evolution.
in many cases,they were indeed there. Fossils were present when they were alive, etc.29 witnesses who were not there,
who cannot show the evidence has not been tampered with, degraded or changed by circumstances
and who present cases that rely on evidence that would not be permissible in a court of law and which would obtain no convictions.
I think you will find that your hermeneutical positions are well outside the mainstream of global Christian historical thought about the scriptures although they may well be nearer to the mainstream in Western liberal theological circles in declining churches. Genesis is written a literal historical style and has been interpreted as a literal historical document for most of its existence.
None of those misinterpretations or redactory errors with the original documents that scholars can agree on impair the basic message of scripture pertaining to the doctrine of creation.
What better quality record than documentary evidence written on the instruction and with the guidance of the only person to witness Creation.
The same forensic tests used to convict a murderer or to declare the paternal father of a newborn baby are used to infer evolutionary history. If you're going to accept forensic evidence in a criminal court trial, then to be consistent, you must also accept forensic evidence in an evolution court trial. Similarly, if you're not going to allow for appeals to miracles in a criminal court trial, you cannot allow for appeals to miracles in a court trial pertaining to the creation of biodiversity.The basic point of this OP is that the ways ín which macro-evolutionists use evidence would not be permissible in a court of law
Oh please! There isn't any documentary or eye-witness testimony that would be accepted in any trial of creation vevsus evolution. The creation story you are trying to prove is IN the documentary evidence you are trying to admit! To accept the documentary evidence as authoritative ASSUMES your conclusion! I'm sorry that assumes facts not in evidence, as Johnny Cochran used to say. Don't misunderstand. As a Christian I believe the documentary evidence and hold it in very high regard. But even if it were admitted there is HUGE disagreement over what it means. Both sides say it supports their side.What better quality record than documentary evidence written on the instruction and with the guidance of the only person to witness Creation.
Yes there are different levels of certainty and the kinds of evidence paraded as fact about events ages past would not pass muster in a court of law for just about any kind of criminal trial we can think of.
ML wrote:
in many cases,they were indeed there. Fossils were present when they were alive, etc.
First, we can see from the surrounding rock that they haven't been tampered with, unless you are saying that Satan magically tampered with them, and their condition is easily verifiable by science. For many of those lines (did you read them?), such as the DNA of current species or the nest hierarchy, the whole idea of tampering or degrading makes no sense. Do you understand what a nested hierarchy is?
Second, and more importantly, if they were tampered with or degraded, why would all 29 give exactly the same answer? If unreliable, would they not give random answers? You didn't answer that from the previous post.
Sure it would be permissible in a court of law. As others have pointed out, it's been permitted in courts of law time after time.
I asked if you agreed there were metaphors in Genesis. Do you agree there are metaphors in Genesis, or not? It's really a very simple question.
Watch those goalposts get moved! First you said we knew what the originals said, now you say that the changes don't matter. Before we move on to that, can you acknowlege both that you agree that you can't say there haven't been changes, and that you are now moving the goalposts?
Can you be clear as to exactly who that person is? Could you give us that person's name for the sake of our discussion? Thanks-
The same forensic tests used to convict a murderer or to declare the paternal father of a newborn baby are used to infer evolutionary history. If you're going to accept forensic evidence in a criminal court trial, then to be consistent, you must also accept forensic evidence in an evolution court trial. Similarly, if you're not going to allow for appeals to miracles in a criminal court trial, you cannot allow for appeals to miracles in a court trial pertaining to the creation of biodiversity.
And by the way, "the ways ín which macro-evolutionists use evidence" HAS been permitted in the court of law. And it has won out every time.
Sure. Paternity tests are based on the fact that closely-related individuals share similarities in their DNA exclusive of other, more distantly related individuals. Evolutionary relatedness is based on the same principles, the similarity between human and chimp DNA being a prime example.Can you give me an example of the use of forensic tests such as those used on modern court evidence but on million old DNA to prove a point relating to the veracity of macro-evolution in a court case please.
The "common designer" argument is an ad hoc argument that explains nothing. If the similarity between organisms attests to their common design, do the differences between organisms attest to their uncommon design? It does not follow that an infinitely-capable God should necessarily limit himself to the same building blocks and bauplans when creating life de novo. Artists don't limit themselves to the same materials.Commonalities and the different ways they are used in different creatures merely testify to the hand of the same Designer and need not be taken as proof of common ancestry with other creatures in a particular branch of the tree of life.
Do you think appeals to miracles should be allowed in the court of law? Do you think a man deemed the paternal father of a newborn baby based on DNA evidence should be allowed to argue that he is unrelated to the child and that their genetic similarity is due only to their common design? Is that a valid argument?I can do that without surrendering a miraculous view of life as these tests are only a part of the whole picture and only tell us so much.
Can you give me an example of the use of forensic tests such as those used on modern court evidence but on million old DNA to prove a point relating to the veracity of macro-evolution in a court case please.
To suggest that tests similar to those used in court cases on DNA evidence can also be used on ancient DNA evidence is false because DNA does not last that long. If you wish to assert conclusions based on analysis of DNA extracted from contemporary creatures then you make big assumptions in saying that you can then draw a tree of life from these interrelationships that plot the development of life.
Commonalities and the different ways they are used in different creatures merely testify to the hand of the same Designer and need not be taken as proof of common ancestry with other creatures in a particular branch of the tree of life.
Forensic evidence can be accepted as having a degree of validity and I know a number of example of that in court cases. I can do that without surrendering a miraculous view of life as these tests are only a part of the whole picture and only tell us so much.
Sure. Paternity tests are based on the fact that closely-related individuals share similarities in their DNA exclusive of other, more distantly related individuals. Evolutionary relatedness is based on the same principles, the similarity between human and chimp DNA being a prime example.
The "common designer" argument is an ad hoc argument that explains nothing. If the similarity between organisms attests to their common design, do the differences between organisms attest to their uncommon design? It does not follow that an infinitely-capable God should necessarily limit himself to the same building blocks and bauplans when creating life de novo. Artists don't limit themselves to the same materials.
Creationists are slowly coming to understand that "common design" isn't a valid argument. Take Todd Wood's essay on the matter, for example:
http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=u4FIU0eLuT6SmyXcvLmbCiFa4UnoWsTP3lyArVOo/gM%3d
He's been commenting on this on his blog lately, too.
Todd Wood said:Even at 99% identity, however, the biological and behavioral differences between chimpanzees and humans indicate that the source of these differences is not likely to be found entirely in the genome sequences. Theologically, the high similarity of humans and chimpanzees reinforces our spiritual – not physical (Ecc. 3:18-21) – distinctiveness from the animals. It is the image of God that makes us human not some intrinsically valuable genetic element.
Do you think appeals to miracles should be allowed in the court of law?
Do you think a man deemed the paternal father of a newborn baby based on DNA evidence should be allowed to argue that he is unrelated to the child and that their genetic similarity is due only to their common design? Is that a valid argument?
I wish you guys get a clue on just what there is that shows common decent, you guys sound ingorant of the subject when you do.
It's NOT just this gene is the same or common accross all species, or even just that the differences in the gene can be connected to a phylogenic tree, so that species on one branch will all share the same differences that another branch doesn't. But there are many things wich don't effect change, ERV's, gene duplications, inversions, broken genes, completly pointless genes if they were made from a kind.
Why do chickens have genes for teeth, why do whales have genes for scent, why do humans have genes for tails, for proteins we don't use, why along with dolphins do humans contain 4% of our DNA devoted to scent receptors that other species use that we don't? Why do whales have genes for creating legs, wich still ocasionally show up? Why do many species during development as a embryo form beginnings of things that evolution shows they should? Birds have finger buds, whales have foot buds and so on?
If you took away all the simularities, we still have all the things that don't make any sense being stuck in. It's like a designer creating a tank, then making a SUV but he sticks big chunks of the parts for the tank in the SUV, even if they are welded to the under frame, and do nothing, but left there.
Lucapsa has a very interesting thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7513865/#post56127903 Evolution convicts criminals where forensic scientists assumed, sorry, constructed a phylogenetic tree of HIV mutations to identify the person who was the source of the infection, even though his own viruses and those of his victims had been busy evolving and changing since the infection.
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?