What if criminal investigations were done the way creationists do science?

[Psudopod]

How do you know it was murder?

We're not certain. But if there is a body in a pool of blood on the floor with a knife through the heart, it's worth an invesitgation, don't you think?

If that is true then what evidence for the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was there that promted the scientific investigation into abiogenesis. If there was none then aren't "scientists" doing what you accuse creationists of doing? Are they then scientists?

There is life now, in the past there was no life as far as we can see. Thus, something must have happened for us to have life now. Hence the invesitgation.

You first need to establish that a "crime" has been committed. In the case of ToE it has not been established it has been assumed (concluded). You have started with a "conclusion" and are (desperately) searching for "evidence" to support it. Again "scientists" are doing what you accuse creationists of doing.

No, we observe species with patterns of simlarities and differences. The theory of evolution is the result of the invesitgation into those patterns (the body, if you will).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You mean the ROMAN CATHOLIC INQUISITION now replaced by the atheistic evolutionary inquisition for the "scientific" heresy of not believing the nonsense they promote.
Bring it on.

Non sequitor of the year

 

[FoeHammer]

We're not certain. But if there is a body in a pool of blood on the floor with a knife through the heart, it's worth an invesitgation, don't you think?

Absolutely, but in order to investigate a murder you must first establish that, in fact, a murder was commited. You don't do that simply by looking at "a body in a pool of blood on the floor with a knife through the heart" do you?

There is life now, in the past there was no life as far as we can see. Thus, something must have happened for us to have life now. Hence the invesitgation.

There was no evidence to suggest that life can form spontaneously from non-living matter prior to that proffered as a result of the scientific investigation into something for which there was no evidence.
For the sake of keeping on track in this thread let us stick to what was said in the OP i.e. That the "creationist method" starts with a conclusion and then searches for evidence to support it. This is exactly what has been done with regards to abiogenesis?

No, we observe species with patterns of simlarities and differences. The theory of evolution is the result of the invesitgation into those patterns (the body, if you will).

Now, what you call evolution I call variation. ToE requires that these variations are not limited I say they appear to be. Evidence to support your view: Unobservable, untestable and therefore unfalsifiable. Evidence to support my view: Observable, testable and undeniable.

FoeHammer.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Absolutely, but in order to investigate a murder you must first establish that, in fact, a murder was commited. You don't do that simply by looking at "a body in a pool of blood on the floor with a knife through the heart" do you?

So what should you do? Assume that a demon in the form of talking snake did it and stop investigating?

 

[Psudopod]

Absolutely, but in order to investigate a murder you must first establish that, in fact, a murder was commited. You don't do that simply by looking at "a body in a pool of blood on the floor with a knife through the heart" do you?

That's where you start. It may be that it was suicide, but you need to look at the body, at the sitution and at the victim to detemine whether it was murder or not. However, murder is rarely suggested without a body.

There was no evidence to suggest that life can form spontaneously from non-living matter prior to that proffered as a result of the scientific investigation into something for which there was no evidence.

Do you deny there is life now? Do you deny there was a point in the past where there was no life? These are the two facts we have - no life and then life. Abiogenesis is the poduct of investigating where that life came from.

Now, what you call evolution I call variation. ToE requires that these variations are not limited I say they appear to be. Evidence to support your view: Unobservable, untestable and therefore unfalsifiable. Evidence to support my view: Observable, testable and undeniable.

What evidence do you have to support your view that is observable, testable and undeniable?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So what should you do? Assume that a demon in the form of talking snake did it and stop investigating?[/COLOR]

Of course. How much more evidence do you need?

 

[TheOutsider]

I still don't understand why Creationists hate things like empiricism, naturalism, and deductive reasoning.

BTW, FoeHammer, this thread is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And there is plenty of evidence for evolution that is observable, testable and undeniable. You just happen to hand-wave anything that doesn't line up with your preconceived notions.

 

[FoeHammer]

So what should you do? Assume that a demon in the form of talking snake did it and stop investigating?[/color]

What exactly is wrong with what I have actually said so far in this thread.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

[/color]
That's where you start. It may be that it was suicide, but you need to look at the body, at the sitution and at the victim to detemine whether it was murder or not. However, murder is rarely suggested without a body.

Well it seems obvious to you now and it was blatantly obvious to me from the outset but the OP'er made the silly mistake of doing what he was accusing creationists of doing.... kinda takes the wind out of his sails (and those who initially agreed with him) doesn't it?

Do you deny there is life now?

Nope.

Do you deny there was a point in the past where there was no life?

Yes, since I believe in The Living God who gave us life.

These are the two facts we have - no life and then life. Abiogenesis is the poduct of investigating where that life came from.

Life comes from life.This is what we observe.

What evidence do you have to support your view that is observable, testable and undeniable?

Every instance of live birth ever witnessed and recorded. Selective breeding programmes, bacteria producing bacteria and fruit flies producing fruit flies.

FoeHammer.

 

[corvus_corax]

Scene of the Death, October 3rd 2007
After receiving a frantic call from Mr Smiths neighbors (who have all been trying to get ahold of him all day), the police arrive at apartment 24 (Mr Smiths apt). After receiving no answer to their knocking on the door, the police enter the apt.
There they find Mr Smith, dead in his chair.
Just to cover all the bases, the CSI's are brought in, follwed by several top notch police Detectives.
What do they find at the scene? Well, first they find no weapon, no knives, clubs, bullet casings, venomous ducks, etc etc etc. As a matter of fact, it appears that Mr Smith died while watching television (the television is still turned on).
The body is sent to a top-of-his-field coroner. After extensive examination of the corpse, the coroner concludes that Mr Smith died of a brain aneurism between 1 am and 1:30 am the previous night.

HOWEVER, the investigators did find a note in Mr Smiths apt. The note stated- "My name is Mr Jones. I killed Mr Smith in the following way...I created a .44 magnum along with the bullets ex nihilo, and then shot Mr Smith directly in his left temple, blowing out the right side of his skull. I did it, period, end of story, CASE CLOSED. Signed, Mr Jones
PS, Im standing immediately to your left"
(Obviously, when everybody looked to their respective left sides, no Mr Jones was seen or otherwise evidenced)

However, the coroner, Detectives and CS investigators all think that this note is nothing more than some sick joke, as ALL THE EVIDENCE points to the fact that Mr Smith died from a brain aneurism. To wit, there is NO evidence that Mr Smith was shot in the head with a .44 round (or any other bullet). Mr Smith doesnt even have so much as a scratch on his body.

One would think that this is an open and shut case. However the DA DEMANDS that Mr Jones be found, arrested and charged with 1st degree aggravated murder.
His reasoning? "Look I dont care WHAT the evidence says, we have a WRITTEN STATEMENT from Mr Jones. Quite frankly mr detective, mr coroner and you idiot CS investigators, your interpretation of the evidence is obviously flawed. Mr Smith WAS shot in the head with a .44 round, period, end of story. So get out there and find him!!"

Now really, how long do you think this DA, assuming he continues to deal with cases in such a fashion, is going to keep his job? Heck, even real life Creationists would most likely demand that he be removed from his position, thereby revealing their hypocrisy.

 

[Vene]

You mean the ROMAN CATHOLIC INQUISITION now replaced by the atheistic evolutionary inquisition for the "scientific" heresy of not believing the nonsense they promote.
Bring it on.

FoewHammer.

Roman Catholics are Christian. They are also followers of Jesus. There are theists who accept evolution as well. Christians included. And scientists don't torture and kill those who disagree with them. Your comparison fails horribly.

And what part of the theory of evolution is nonsense. (and please stick to evolution, not strawmen or other theories)

 

[FoeHammer]

Scene of the Death, October 3rd 2007
After receiving a frantic call from Mr Smiths neighbors (who have all been trying to get ahold of him all day), the police arrive at apartment 24 (Mr Smiths apt). After receiving no answer to their knocking on the door, the police enter the apt.
There they find Mr Smith, dead in his chair.
Just to cover all the bases, the CSI's are brought in, follwed by several top notch police Detectives.
What do they find at the scene? Well, first they find no weapon, no knives, clubs, bullet casings, venomous ducks, etc etc etc. As a matter of fact, it appears that Mr Smith died while watching television (the television is still turned on).
The body is sent to a top-of-his-field coroner. After extensive examination of the corpse, the coroner concludes that Mr Smith died of a brain aneurism between 1 am and 1:30 am the previous night.

HOWEVER, the investigators did find a note in Mr Smiths apt. The note stated- "My name is Mr Jones. I killed Mr Smith in the following way...I created a .44 magnum along with the bullets ex nihilo, and then shot Mr Smith directly in his left temple, blowing out the right side of his skull. I did it, period, end of story, CASE CLOSED. Signed, Mr Jones
PS, Im standing immediately to your left"
(Obviously, when everybody looked to their respective left sides, no Mr Jones was seen or otherwise evidenced)

However, the coroner, Detectives and CS investigators all think that this note is nothing more than some sick joke, as ALL THE EVIDENCE points to the fact that Mr Smith died from a brain aneurism. To wit, there is NO evidence that Mr Smith was shot in the head with a .44 round (or any other bullet). Mr Smith doesnt even have so much as a scratch on his body.

How about if they found the note but never found the body?
Just wondered.

FoeHammer.

 

[truth above all else]

please dont taint real science by associating it with the methods employed by evolutionary thinkers. The alleged fact of evolution was assumed from its inception, and worldwide fame awaits anyone who can produce confirming evidence. The evidence does not permit us to conclude that the miracle of life arose spontaneously from a warm puddle of soup, nor does it permit us to suggest that biological patterns of relationship mean evolutionary relationships.

 

[Vene]

please dont taint real science by associating it with the methods employed by evolutionary thinkers.

What methodology was incorrect and why is evolution wrong?

The alleged fact of evolution was assumed from its inception, and worldwide fame awaits anyone who can produce confirming evidence.

Except that Darwin went against common thought at the time when Biblical creation was assumed to be the correct model. And that those who challenge current scientific consensus with evidence gain fame.

The evidence does not permit us to conclude that the miracle of life arose spontaneously from a warm puddle of soup,

Strawman of abiogenesis. Disproving abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

nor does it permit us to suggest that biological patterns of relationship mean evolutionary relationships.

How so? I'm serious, I want some reasoning and/or evidence for this.

 

[corvus_corax]

How about if they found the note but never found the body?
Just wondered.

FoeHammer.

How about if you actually address my post? After all, you quoted the entire thing.

Just wondering

 

[truth above all else]

How so? I'm serious, I want some reasoning and/or evidence for this.

By defining evolution as "whatever produces classification" then of course evolution is fact, in the same way as classification is fact. Such thinking can only appeal to the most limited and stunted of minds.Evolution is merely a deduction from the fact of relationship.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What exactly is wrong with what I have actually said so far in this thread.

FoeHammer.

So far I haven't seen anything right that you have posted. I was describing the creationist approach to origins research. Creationists assume a supernatural agency was at work and ignore any evidence to the contrary even though there is no supportive evidence for the supernatural agency.

 

[Vene]

By defining evolution as "whatever produces classification" then of course evolution is fact, in the same way as classification is fact. Such thinking can only appeal to the most limited and stunted of minds.Evolution is merely a deduction from the fact of relationship.

Except that evolution is used as a tool to provide classification, it isn't the classification itself. The theory simply states that the allele frequency of a population changes over time.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

By defining evolution as "whatever produces classification" then of course evolution is fact, in the same way as classification is fact. Such thinking can only appeal to the most limited and stunted of minds.

This from someone who apparently thinks The Flintstones was a documentary.

Evolution is merely a deduction from the fact of relationship.

The fact is that overwhelming evidence shows that all species on earth are related through descent from common ancestors. The theory of evolution explains that fact and there is currently no other scientific explanation that is supported by the evidence.

 

[corvus_corax]

The theory simply states that the allele frequency of a population changes over time.

Correct me if Im wrong, but isn't that the fact of evolution? Allele frequency changes is an undeniable fact. The theory gives a model regarding how those changes come about.