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

[Vene]

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.

You're right that there is more as to how evolution works, but this isn't a biology class and starting with the basic facts is always good.

Regardless evolution definitely isn't a classification system.

 

[FoeHammer]

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

Just wondering

I did! Without the body the rest of the post it worthless... kinda my point really.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

So far I haven't seen anything right that you have posted.

Then it won't be a problem for you tell me where and why I was wrong will it?..... So go on then.

I was describing the creationist approach to origins research.

You weren't describing anything, you asked two questions.

Creationists assume a supernatural agency was at work and ignore any evidence to the contrary

What "evidence to the contrary"?

even though there is no supportive evidence for the supernatural agency.

The evidence of God is all around and within you.

FoeHammer.

 

[TheOutsider]

What "evidence to the contrary"?

200,000 ERVs, most of the fossil record, almost all of geology, twin nested hierarchy, astrophysics, morphology, transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, the thousand of observed instances of speciation... Do I need to keep going?

The evidence of God is all around and within you.
FoeHammer.

I have yet to see evidence of your specific god.

 

[MoonLancer]

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

common i thought you would have picked up on it by now.

they don't like it because it proves them wrong.

 

[TheOutsider]

common i thought you would have picked up on it by now.

they don't like it because it proves them wrong.

I guess I should correct my statement: Creationists only dislike empiricism, naturalism, and deductive reasoning when it proves them wrong. Any other time is fine. It's their own particular brand of Special Pleading. Science works except when it conflicts with their religious books.

 

[MoonLancer]

I guess I should correct my statement: Creationists only dislike empiricism, naturalism, and deductive reasoning when it proves them wrong. Any other time is fine. It's their own particular brand of Special Pleading. Science works except when it conflicts with their religious books.

exactly.

 

[TheBear]

Since we weren't there to witness the murder, we really don't know. Any wild speculation is just as good as the next. Case dismissed. Teach the controversy!

 

[corvus_corax]

I did! Without the body the rest of the post it worthless... kinda my point really.

FoeHammer.

O I get it!!!
Lets see if I have this straight-

I propose a hypothetical situation related to the OP.
Then you come along and say "Yeah but what if the situation you propose is completely different?"

I see now...........well have fun with your strawman statements instead of just addressing the points brought up.



BTW, if the body was NEVER found, NO evidence for a murder was ever uncovered, the person who wrote the note was never found, etc....well then I guess in some cases the 'vanished' person would eventually be declared legally dead. So what you have proposed is something similar to Creationism- No evidence, no evidence of a Creator, no reason to believe that your "creator" ever wrote anything (much less the bible itself)...........and yet you guys refuse to admit that your fairy tale is dead.
So, your proposal hits the Creationism nail on the head. Thanks for arguing against your side

 

[truth above all else]

200,000 ERVs, most of the fossil record, almost all of geology, twin nested hierarchy, astrophysics, morphology, transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, the thousand of observed instances of speciation... Do I need to keep going?




yes, but do you even know where you are going? the examples you cite are starting to bore me,they are all associated with manufactured pseudosciences and have been constantly defended by their worldly and sophisticated advocates, who incidentally are paid handsomely to maintain the charade. Evolutionary science(for want of a better word) is impotent with respect to origins


I have yet to see evidence of your specific god.

Look into the eyes of your child

 

[TheOutsider]

yes, but do you even know where you are going? the examples you cite are starting to bore me,

And you are boring me with your unsubstantiated claims.

they are all associated with manufactured pseudosciences

Prove that they are pseudosciences.

and have been constantly defended by their worldly and sophisticated advocates, who incidentally are paid handsomely to maintain the charade.

I do believe that preachers make much more than scientists. I guess I should stop listening to them too.

Evolutionary science(for want of a better word) is impotent with respect to origins

Look into the eyes of your child

That is extremely vague. That could be evidence for any god. (Ironically, my daughter is named after an ancient goddess, Eris)

 

[christtoevo]

I watched this show once (cant remeber the name) where an arab woman was accused of adultery.
The way they went about getting evidence was to put a pan on a fire for a few mins and then touched it on her tounge, if here tounge swells, she dies, if it doesent, she lives.

Lucky for her she is still alive.

 

[Deadbolt]

I watched this show once (cant remeber the name) where an arab woman was accused of adultery.
The way they went about getting evidence was to put a pan on a fire for a few mins and then touched it on her tounge, if here tounge swells, she dies, if it doesent, she lives.

Lucky for her she is still alive.

Ahh, Trial by Ordeal. They used to do that a lot in the middle ages...

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Then it won't be a problem for you tell me where and why I was wrong will it?.....So go on then.

I think others have alread done a pretty good job of that but calling evolution nonsense was certainly wrong. Nonsense is things like talking snakes and "created kinds"

You weren't describing anything, you asked two questions.

I asked whether we should take an approach similar to the creationist approach to origins which is to assume that a supernatural being did it and stop looking for any evidence that he didn't.

What "evidence to the contrary"?

The evidence to the contrary has been been discussed on countless posts on this board and fills millions of pages in scientific journals. Do you want evidence for evolution or for an earth that is far older than young earth creationists allow or against the global flood. The evidence for the contrary depends on which brand of creationist you are.

The evidence of God is all around and within you.

FoeHammer.

So how does that "evidence of God" which you can't actually provide, say anything about the evidence of modern science?

 

[FoeHammer]

200,000 ERVs, most of the fossil record, almost all of geology, twin nested hierarchy, astrophysics, morphology, transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, the thousand of observed instances of speciation... Do I need to keep going?

How about I provide my name and address and you can pop any evidence you think you have into a very small box and mail it to me, I'll even refund the P&P? But I guess you don't have any of that kind of evidence do you? You'll want to link me to some article on the web which you consider evidence but I consider someones interpretation of alleged evidence.

I have yet to see evidence of your specific god.

You have seen the evidence of God you just don't see it as evidence of Him.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

O I get it!!!
Lets see if I have this straight-

I propose a hypothetical situation related to the OP.
Then you come along and say "Yeah but what if the situation you propose is completely different?"

I see now...........well have fun with your strawman statements instead of just addressing the points brought up.

You freely admit to proposing a hypothetical situation and then accuse me of building strawmen LOL! go figure.

FoeHammer.

 

[AV1611VET]

I watched this show once (cant remeber the name) where an arab woman was accused of adultery.
The way they went about getting evidence was to put a pan on a fire for a few mins and then touched it on her tounge, if here tounge swells, she dies, if it doesent, she lives.

Lucky for her she is still alive.

The Indians did the same thing. Those accused of something would stand in line with those not accused. Then they would heat a knife and briefly touch each tongue. The person whose tongue swelled was usually the guilty party, as salivation stops when someone gets nervous.

 

[Catholicon]

How about I provide my name and address and you can pop any evidence you think you have into a very small box and mail it to me, I'll even refund the P&P? But I guess you don't have any of that kind of evidence do you? You'll want to link me to some article on the web which you consider evidence but I consider someones interpretation of alleged evidence.You have seen the evidence of God you just don't see it as evidence of Him.

FoeHammer.

Better yet, why don't you have a read of http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html and http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/index.html

I would quote some, but there's SO MUCH THERE.

 

[FoeHammer]

I think others have alread done a pretty good job of that

In other words you can't? I thought not.

but calling evolution nonsence was certainly wrong.

That would depend on whether you think it makes sense or not. It doesn't make sense to me therefore it is nonsense. The only argument you can have with that would amount to nothing more than a difference of opinion.

Nonsense is things like talking snakes and "created kinds"

I have a different opinion with regards to "talking snakes" and created kinds.

I asked whether we should take an approach similar to the creationist approach to origins which is to assume that a supernatural being did it and stop looking for any evidence that he didn't.

No you didn't, post #44 page 5 go take another look.

The evidence to the contrary has been been discussed on countless posts on this board and fills millions of pages in scientific journals. Do you want evidence for evolution or for an earth that is far older than young earth creationists allow or against the global flood. The evidence for the contrary depends on which brand of creationist you are.

So this evidence you speak of amounts to nothing more than yet more differences of opinion?

So how does that "evidence of God" which you can't actually provide, say anything about the evidence of modern science?

Actually you already have the evidence that you say I cannot provide. Look without and look within... That is real evidence, now, what do you make of that evidence?

FoeHammer.

 

[MoonLancer]

Look into the eyes of your child

i see the wild fey looking back at me, eternal and forever. They call out for the woods and the rivers to return to this land. They call on me to smash the cathedrals of stone and glass and return the planets freedom from from our malice, our pestilence, and our complacency, and apathy.

Not quite the answer you hand in mind was it? what you see is a persona truth that you desperately wish to be real. The world speaks and you and your theology are not upon its lips.