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

[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.

I don't read "talk origins" (wash my mouth.) the atheistic evo fundies unholy babble. You ought to take time out to learn what evidence is rather than link me to biased opinion.

FoeHammer.

 

[MoonLancer]

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.

The Indians did it so it must be true... i don't quite follow your logic

Who gave them the disease infested blankets?

You ought to take time out to learn what evidence is...

as should you good sir. its tough refuting Pratt over and over and over and over. web links are easier.

 

[AV1611VET]

The world speaks and you and your theology are not upon its lips.

Au contraire --- [bible]Luke 19:40[/bible][bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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

You thought? I haven't seen any evidence of you thinking, just creationist reacting.

That would depend on whether you think it makes sense or not. It doesn't make sense to me therefore it is nonsense.

Now that is nonsense.

The only argument you can have with that would amount to nothing more than a difference of opinion.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts and the facts from the study of biology, geology and paleontology show that life has been descending from common ancestors on this planet for hundreds of millions of year.

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

So you don't think that a talking snake is nonsense? How about a man made from mud or a woman from a rib or a women turning into a pillar of salt or the sun "standing still"? And yet you think one of the best evidenced theories is science is nonsense.

No you didn't, post #44 page 5 go take another look.So this evidence you speak of amounts to nothing more than yet more differences of opinion? [/quote]
I wrote
So what should you do? Assume that a demon in the form of talking snake did it and stop investigating?

This is exactly the creationist approach to origins. Read AV sig. "God did it - Case Closed".

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?

Actually you have already seen lots of evidence for evolution you say we can't provide. Now exactly what am I supposed to see within???

 

[MoonLancer]

Au contraire --- [bible]Luke 19:40[/bible][bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

the stones say the world is alot older then you think it is

you have stated that the stones speak but you have not proven what its saying, and your second qoat is not relevant and out of place. Your just going with what 'sounds' right, but you need to go back to theology school

 

[AV1611VET]

the stones say the world is alot older then you think it is

How old do I think it is?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't read "talk origins" (wash my mouth.) the atheistic evo fundies unholy babble. You ought to take time out to learn what evidence is rather than link me to biased opinion.

FoeHammer.

The great creationist dodge. All of the evidence for evolution is "biased opinion". If you refuse to look at evidence for evolution it is no wonder you don't see any. Your approach is God did it case closed just like AV. You assume a supernatural entity was responsible and stop looking. This is exactly the point I made in post 44 on page 5. Thank you for proving it for me.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

How old do I think it is?

Do you think it was created 6,000 years ago or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

The great creationist dodge. All of the evidence for evolution is "biased opinion". If you refuse to look at evidence for evolution it is no wonder you don't see any. Your approach is God did it case closed just like AV. You assume a supernatural entity was responsible and stop looking. This is exactly the point I made in post 44 on page 5. Thank you for proving it for me.

Sounds like my kinda guy!

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think it was created 6,000 years ago or not?

Do I?

 

[AV1611VET]

Moonlancer, second time, how old do I think this world is?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Do I?

You're asking me? I am not surprised that even you don't know what you believe since your posts on the topic have been so illogical.

 

[FoeHammer]

.....

as should you good sir. its tough refuting Pratt over and over and over and over. web links are easier.

I know exactly what evidence is and that it cannot be provided on a thread in a forum on the web. All you can give are opinions of interpretations, more opinions of interpretations and yet more opinions of interpretations.

FoeHammer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Moonlancer, no offense, my friend, but it only took you 6 minutes to tell me the stones say the world is older than I think it is; but it's been 20 minutes now since I've asked you how old I think the world is. What gives here?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Moonlancer, no offense, my friend, but it only took you 6 minutes to tell me the stones say the world is older than I think it is; but it's been 20 minutes now since I've asked you how old I think the world is. What gives here?

Mabye he's waiting you to tell us how you think the world is. Was it created 6,000 years ago or not?

 

[Psudopod]

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?

Not really. He's talking about a hypothetical murder invesitgation. Since there is a murder investigation, we can assume someone found the body and set the invesitgation in process. The details weren't given in the OP because they weren't necessary. They weren't relevent to the point he was making.

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

So there was a point before the living god gave us life where there was not life, right?

Anyway, the point is at we see evidence of life back in history only as far as a certain point. And then we see no evidence of life. We also see evidence of self replicating chemicals. So abiogenesis was put forward to explain the evidence, not vice versa as you claimed.

Life comes from life.This is what we observe.

Are virii alive? Can chemicals self relicate? Proto cells have grown in the lab from non-living chemicals. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that abiogenisis is perfectly reasonable. Just because we haven't exactly replicated it yet doesn't mean we're wrong. We're still working on it. There's much more evidence pointing to this rather than all creatures suddenly appearing in the forms we see today 6000 years ago.

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

Live animals giving birth to live babies isn't extly evidence against abiogenesis, is it? It's kind of like saying there's no such things as cows when you only look in the pig pen.

And how many times have people tried to explain that evolution does not state that something should give birth to something completely different to itself? Evolution is not about pigs giving birth to cows.

 

[corvus_corax]

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

FoeHammer.

Wow! Why do I bother? You obviously don't understand what a strawman argument is

 

[MoonLancer]

Moonlancer, no offense, my friend, but it only took you 6 minutes to tell me the stones say the world is older than I think it is; but it's been 20 minutes now since I've asked you how old I think the world is. What gives here?

no offense but i didn't see your post. I have responded right after seeing your posts for the first time. I don't avoid honest questions. lets just be clear on that ok?

Moonlancer, second time, how old do I think this world is?

well my guess is 6000 years or so but if I am wrong and your not a creationist... you have done much to lead me astray. The rocks say 4.55 billion years.

so if you do not think the world is 6000 years old you should not step in and make it seem as if your defending that idea.

your bible qoats do not mentions that the rocks tell the age of the earth (as they do) but your right they do indeed mention the word rocks.

 

[plindboe]

Are virii alive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus

Peter

 

[Nathan Poe]

Moonlancer, second time, how old do I think this world is?

You don't know. James Ussher tells you it's 6,000 years old, but the evidence says it's about 4.5 billion years old, and you want so desperately to believe them both you've confused yourself with mental gymnastics that even you can't follow anymore.