Jump to content


Photo

C S I


  • Please log in to reply
199 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 June 2009 - 07:25 PM

Would you say that a forensic scientist bases his theory of who-done-it on faith?

View Post

If you use the Biblical definition of faith... the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen... then absolutely. You have to believe in what the evidence reveals because any historical investigation, even a recent murder, is the study of an unrepeatable event.

Faith isn't an option in life. It is necessary. Defining it into oblivion, like the way atheists have, is silly. It just sets the stage for people to ignorantly employ blind faith with an argumentative shield to pretend it's not happening, like with evolution.

#22 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 June 2009 - 07:26 PM

Just think how reasonable it is to say; "I have faith that the evidence points to the guilt of Mr. Brown."

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 June 2009 - 08:09 PM

On one of my favorite shows, CSI (I like the original and CSI New York the best), detectives sift through evidence to catch criminals.

Now, I realize these are only fictional shows.  However, every week they showcase actual scientific methods that real detectives use in the real world every day to catch bad guys.

None of these detectives is usually actually present at the scene of the murders, rapes, burglaries, etc., yet using evidence they are able to piece together a pretty accurate picture of what happened.

My question is, would you consider forensice science to be "real" science?

View Post


CSI is also my favorite shows. I watch:
1) CSI Miami
2) NewYork
3) And the original one which is my favorite.

CSIs put together evidence to be tried in court. CSIs don't judge or convict, so their jobs end once their professional opinions, and facts are all put together for the court to hear.

Once the court gets the evidence it has to go through an investigation on whether the evidence is creditable and "non-bias" (not tainted by a bias opinion of a CSI). And it has to be presented that way. Then it is up to the lawyers to use this evidence for their client, or against the other side.

A person can be convicted on as much opinion as they are on fact. This is also why the jury is polled before they are selected to listen to the case. To make sure that their bias opinion does not send an innocent man to prison or worse.

And because of all the checks and balances done it is science.

Evolution and peer reviews are done very differently. Everyone that does this already believes evolution is a true fact. Most think creation is stupid, and that only uneducated ignorant people believe it. And the majority are atheist (No God no Creator). No one is polled to make sure their is no bias in the decision making. All creation evidence is already deemed fraudulent even before it is discussed or looked into. The person who finds the evidence is "always" accused of frauding it, even though no witnesses to the crime are ever produced. It's just basically assumed.

If you had to go to court:

Now in the world of forensic science, would you want the jury and the evidence stacked against you in this manner even before the case is heard (before you even stepped into the court room)? Would you want a jury that was not polled for bias against you to hear your case? Would you want evidence that is always considered fraudulent and fake even before it is seen or discussed in court to be your defense? Would you want to walk into a court room where over 90% of everyone in there already deems you are a liar even before you open your mouth?

Also considering that evolutionists that do the peer reviews are usually:

1) Employed in a job where believing evolution is required.
2) Have been schooled in college where evolution taught as a true fact.
3) Have incomes that reflect their acceptance of evolution.
4) And are basically required to reject creation.

Would you say that "any" creationist would get a fair shake even due to all this? And if so, if a panel of creationists peer reviewers were set up in the very same way that the panel for evolution peer reviewers is. And you had to go before them instead of or own peers for peer review. Would you say you would get a fair shake?

You see the checks and balances required for fairness, and non-bias opinion, do not exist where evolution is concerned. All evidence, creation or not, either "conforms" to the accepted theory. Or is rejected, and debunked. Because if science were really out to find truth regardless of what it is. Each theory and idea would be allowed to exist while evidence for it is found. And which ever was the best would be in front and everything else would be at different levels of truth. It would be like a race for truth. And the money spent on each would be funded out almost evenly so that each idea had a chance to be proven.

But instead, which theory gets 99% of all the money?
Which theory has the most people employed to prove it?
Which theory is required teaching of any schooled deemed credible?
Which theory has the most professional animation used to show processes that cannot even be observed?
Which theory is constantly promoted by Hollywood?
etc...

So in comparison, does any other idea even have a fair chance to prove itself when science has already declared a winner?

Don't believe a winner has been declared? What theory is every idea (other theories) compared to? And if they don't meet the grade (conform or support the declared winner), what happens to the theory and the person who dared challenge the declared winner? Credibility destroyed.

So seeing all this, would you say the tables are already stacked to prove evolution no matter what?

Besides, evolution organizations being able to become non-profit, when they are already government funded, is using what was meant to be a separated from the state. Combining it to get and unfair advantage. Which puts science in the right position to take over all non-profits once socialism kicks Christians and creation totally out of everything. Which was the goal of Darwinists anyway. Rid the opposition, and make only one choice available.

#24 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 June 2009 - 08:44 PM

Would you say that a forensic scientist bases his theory of who-done-it on faith?


Hi Judy,

Absolutely not,but when we look at the fossil record we find sudden appearance,stasis,and extinction.That means the evidence gathered contradicts the evidence predicted,in which case,the jury would be insane to convict on "anti-evidence".

#25 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 23 June 2009 - 05:01 AM

Would you say that a forensic scientist bases his theory of who-done-it on faith?


Hi Judy,

Absolutely not,but when we look at the fossil record we find sudden appearance,stasis,and extinction.That means the evidence gathered contradicts the evidence predicted,in which case,the jury would be insane to convict on "anti-evidence".

View Post


Jason,

You claim to be a YEC. How does the fact that the fossil record shows, as you yourself say, species coming into existence, existing for a while, and then dying out, bolster your conviction that the earth has only existed for a mere 6000 years, and God created every species in the first week?

How do you fit the evidence that approximately 90% of species that have ever existed are now extinct, to the Biblical timeline?

#26 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 23 June 2009 - 05:03 AM

I think we have very different ideas about what faith is.


the Biblical definition of faith... the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen...

View Post


This biblical definition that keeps getting bandied about - can you explain it to me in your own words, what you believe it means, and please, don't use any quotes from the Bible, if at all possible?

#27 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 23 June 2009 - 05:16 AM

CSI is also my favorite shows. I watch:
1) CSI Miami
2) NewYork
3) And the original one which is my favorite.

CSIs put together evidence to be tried in court. CSIs don't judge or convict, so their jobs end once their professional opinions, and facts are all put together for the court to hear.

Once the court gets the evidence it has to go through an investigation on whether the evidence is creditable and "non-bias" (not tainted by a bias opinion of a CSI). And it has to be presented that way. Then it is up to the lawyers to use this evidence for their client, or against the other side.

A person can be convicted on as much opinion as they are on fact. This is also why the jury is polled before they are selected to listen to the case. To make sure that their bias opinion does not send an innocent man to prison or worse.

And because of all the checks and balances done it is science.

Evolution and peer reviews are done very differently. Everyone that does this already believes evolution is a true fact. Most think creation is stupid, and that only uneducated ignorant people believe it. And the majority are atheist (No God no Creator). No one is polled to make sure their is no bias in the decision making. All creation evidence is already deemed fraudulent even before it is discussed or looked into. The person who finds the evidence is "always" accused of frauding it, even though no witnesses to the crime are ever produced. It's just basically assumed.

If you had to go to court:

Now in the world of forensic science, would you want the jury and the evidence stacked against you in this manner even before the case is heard (before you even stepped into the court room)? Would you want a jury that was not polled for bias against you to hear your case? Would you want evidence that is always considered fraudulent and fake even before it is seen or discussed in court to be your defense? Would you want to walk into a court room where over 90% of everyone in there already deems you are a liar even before you open your mouth?

Also considering that evolutionists that do the peer reviews are usually:

1) Employed in a job where believing evolution is required.
2) Have been schooled in college where evolution taught as a true fact.
3) Have incomes that reflect their acceptance of evolution.
4) And are basically required to reject creation.

Would you say that "any" creationist would get a fair shake even due to all this? And if so, if a panel of creationists peer reviewers were set up in the very same way that the panel for evolution peer reviewers is. And you had to go before them instead of or own peers for peer review. Would you say you would get a fair shake?

You see the checks and balances required for fairness, and non-bias opinion, do not exist where evolution is concerned. All evidence, creation or not, either "conforms" to the accepted theory. Or is rejected, and debunked. Because if science were really out to find truth regardless of what it is. Each theory and idea would be allowed to exist while evidence for it is found. And which ever was the best would be in front and everything else would be at different levels of truth. It would be like a race for truth. And the money spent on each would be funded out almost evenly so that each idea had a chance to be proven.

But instead, which theory gets 99% of all the money?
Which theory has the most people employed to prove it?
Which theory is required teaching of any schooled deemed credible?
Which theory has the most professional animation used to show processes that cannot even be observed?
Which theory is constantly promoted by Hollywood?
etc...

So in comparison, does any other idea even have a fair chance to prove itself when science has already declared a winner?

Don't believe a winner has been declared? What theory is every idea (other theories) compared to? And if they don't meet the grade (conform or support the declared winner), what happens to the theory and the person who dared challenge the declared winner? Credibility destroyed.

So seeing all this, would you say the tables are already stacked to prove evolution no matter what?

Besides, evolution organizations being able to become non-profit, when they are already government funded, is using what was meant to be a separated from the state. Combining it to get and unfair advantage. Which puts science in the right position to take over all non-profits once socialism kicks Christians and creation totally out of everything. Which was the goal of Darwinists anyway. Rid the opposition, and make only one choice available.

View Post


Actually, I believe in the USA anyway, the majority of scientists are not atheists, Ikester. After a very quick search I found the following:

SEED asked a total of 1000 scientists whether they were "atheist or agnostic," "practicing nonbelievers," "believers," or "spiritual" [SEED: State of Science].

Here's the result, in percent, for each of the four choices.

USA: atheist = 17%, nonbelievers = 6%, believers = 53%, spiritual = 24%


at this website: http://sandwalk.blog...scientists.html

Perhaps you could find some statistics that agree with your frequent claims to the contrary.

If 99% of the money goes towards evolution research, perhaps it's because IT WORKS! People with money aren't usually frivolous about where they like to invest it. They like to get good returns on their investment.

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 June 2009 - 05:32 AM

Science has just redefined faith into levels of fact.

Example:

1) Creation is always blind faith.
2) Evolution, supposetly falsifiable, is fact.

1) Creation evience is 100% rejected by science. That's why it's consider blind faith.
2) Evolution evidence is always accepted as fact. Even if the said process is not observable, and never will be.

So basically, it's not how one defines a word, or the actual meaning. It is what science says. Science basically has it's own dictionary for everything.

Example: The word "fact".

Normal definition: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case". Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.

Scientific definition: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts". Information that has been objectively verified. An observation that all (or almost all) scientists agree is correct. etc...

Simular, but when applied, the differences are made clear. One (scientific definition) is determined by a group of people who set their "own standards". Standards that change. The other basically stays the same

#29 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 June 2009 - 05:42 AM

I think we have very different ideas about what faith is.

View Post

Yup. Mine is the historical definition, yours is the new age one.

This biblical definition that keeps getting bandied about...

View Post

...because it is the actual definition...

...can you explain it to me in your own words, what you believe it means...

View Post

Certainly! I started working on this last night. I do have to quote the Bible for the definition because that's where it comes from, though. :blink:

The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. An earthly example:

Lisa and I have been married for over three years. I have to decide whether my faith in her is properly placed. My desire is that she remain true to me and that she is honest with me.

Now I could be suspicious of her all the times that I can't verify her faithfulness and I could satisfy that suspicion by hiring a private investigator to follow her around and ask friends to report to me whether she has any unusual activity that I don't know about, but is this needed to be aware of the truth that my faith is properly placed?

The substance of things hoped for is her actual fidelity. The unseen reality that she is exactly who I believe she is a faithful and loyal wife.

The evidence of things not seen is the tells of her desire to be honest with others and her trustworthiness that what she says is what she is. I can't confirm that she's faithful when we're apart but I can use all the circumstantial evidence of how people speak about her and how she is towards me and how she has behaved in the past to give me knowledge that the things I can't empirically verify are indeed true.

Now my faith in her would be misplaced if she cheated on me and I discovered that she was a liar. Additionally, I would have a blind faith in her if I believed she was going to be faithful to me after a repeated track record of infidelity and lying.

...and please, don't use any quotes from the Bible, if at all possible?

View Post

Sorry, no can do.

Jesus said:

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?



#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 June 2009 - 06:22 AM

Actually, I believe in the USA anyway, the majority of scientists are not atheists, Ikester.  After a very quick search I found the following:
at this website: http://sandwalk.blog...scientists.html


There are degrees of faith just like there are degrees of truth. What would you call a person whom says they are Christian, then turn around and trash God and all His followers for believing creation? God's standard for faith requires total faith, not varying degrees of it. What would you call a preacher whom claims to believe in God, then gets behind the pulpit and uses God's name in vain (Using it to cuss)? Does whom he claims to be and believe own up to his actions.

Jeremiah Wright used God's name in vain when he said: God d*m America. He actually broke one of the 10 commandments as an example of his belief while standing behind the pulpit. So if he has ever used the 10 commandments as an example of what not to do, then he is a hypocrite.

Perhaps you could find some statistics that agree with your frequent claims to the contrary.


Poll is based upon what? If people say: Yes I believe in God. But if you followed those same people and used how they lived their life as an example of what they claim to be. How many would you say were actually a shining example of that claim? !0% maybe?

A murderer, child molester, chronic liar, atheist, buddhist monk, etc... Can claim to believe in God. But the standard God requires is not always met that confirms this.

Example: If I claim to you that I am Christian and believe in God. Then turn around and cuss you out. What would you think and why? Did my actions (evidence of my faith) support my claim?

You see "faith" is a verb as well as a belief. Your "actions" define whether or not a person is lying. That is why when someone says: I'll pay you back, I'm a Christian. You'd better run the other way. Why? They are trying to get you to trust who they are by what they claim to be. Which is faith without works (the verb part of faith). And what does the Bible say about faith and no works.

jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

People can claim whatever they want about who they are or what they believe. But to claim faith in God, and not have the action (evidence) to back up that claim is lying. It's like claiming to have a degree but no diploma to back it up. Faith requires the work as a action of proof.

Example: If I were polled and told the poller I believed in Darwin's idea of evolution (had faith). Then went home logged onto this forum and trashed it every way that I could. Did my actions (evidence) support my claim to the poller?

Now how many polled that said: I believe in God. Had their actions support their claim? Trash creation and their actions no longer support their claim.

If 99% of the money goes towards evolution research, perhaps it's because IT WORKS!  People with money aren't usually frivolous about where they like to invest it.  They like to get good returns on their investment.

View Post


So you agree that it is not truth they are after, but using their money to prove what they want to be true and what is already consider the winner? So by that standard, evolution is no longer falsifiable because no other idea will ever be funded enough to ever challenge it on the same level in order to do so. So in that aspect, science, and all the investors have declared a winner. Evolution has become an absolute, not because it has been proven to that level. But because it has been "exalted" to that level by time and money.

Question: Is science about making money, or finding truth?

If science were about finding truth, they would heed to a verse in the Bible which says: The "love" of money is the root to all evil. Because wanting a good return has made science only go in one direction for truth, and that direction lays out a trail of money instead of actual research.

Example: If a scientist comes to a fork in the road in his research. He looks down one road and sees basically no money, and looks down another and sees millions of dollars. Which should he take? And what is the "real" reason that he should take any road?

By your logic of good returns on investments, he should always take the money road. So it is by the "love of money" that evolution is considered a true fact. Not by actual science and research.

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:41 AM

Hey Judy, I don't know if you have ever listened to this but I think Bruce Little has a good broad brush perspective that shows the flawed ideas that have developed regarding faith and how the church even ignorantly participated in the great truth divorce:

http://bethinking.or...t-truth-divorce

#32 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 23 June 2009 - 11:56 AM

Jason,

You claim to be a YEC.  How does the fact that the fossil record shows, as you yourself say, species coming into existence, existing for a while, and then dying out, bolster your conviction that the earth has only existed for a mere 6000 years, and God created every species in the first week?

How do you fit the evidence that approximately 90% of species that have ever existed are now extinct, to the Biblical timeline?


Hi Judy,

Where did you get those numbers from,besides your imagination ? 90% of all fossils found in the fossil record are still alive today.In other words,you have good evidence it just either has'nt been found or just mysteriously evaporated.I would love to see a CSI team make a case with that.



Thanks.

#33 perspective

perspective

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • North Carolina

Posted 23 June 2009 - 02:06 PM

On one of my favorite shows, CSI (I like the original and CSI New York the best), detectives sift through evidence to catch criminals.

Now, I realize these are only fictional shows.  However, every week they showcase actual scientific methods that real detectives use in the real world every day to catch bad guys.

None of these detectives is usually actually present at the scene of the murders, rapes, burglaries, etc., yet using evidence they are able to piece together a pretty accurate picture of what happened.

My question is, would you consider forensice science to be "real" science?

View Post


I think I know where this is going. Everyone will agree that forensics is real science, then you will say "ah ha" This is the same thing that scientist do with evolution. Well, not quite. When a CSI agent goes to the scene of a crime they Do Not have any preconceived notions about what happened. The supposed murder is recreated AFTER the evidence is examined, not before. Naturalist Evolutionist already are under the assumption that the earth is millions of years old, that physical reality is the only reality, and that life was formed from non-life (chemical processes). Therefore, when they find evidence they fit the evidence into the evolution story. I hope this helps you to understand the difference between biased and unbiased science. Creationists are not against science, in fact we encourage it. We do however have problems with unfounded bias.

#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 June 2009 - 02:29 PM

If my spouse was discovered dead in my home, I would not like a forensic scientist to come to my home if they already had a preconceived notion that I was the one who killed my spouse, would you?  This sort of thing happens all the time though.  That's not good forensics, neither is it good science.

View Post


And yet this is exactly how the atheistic evolutionists compile their information. If a million years doesn't work, just tack on a few more zeros, rocks dating the bones, adjusting the math so carbon dating works etc...

Spherical reasoning at it's best. :blink:

And you're right "That's not good forensics, neither is it good science".

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 June 2009 - 02:32 PM

Evolutionary theory is based on masses of evidence.

Please show how this is false, or wishful thinking.  Thanks

View Post


This site is full of facts that negate your whole theorem Judy. Is it your wish that I spend the time dragging you through all the argumentation you've already lost here? That could take a while, and you'd likely just continue to deny it anyway.

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 June 2009 - 02:35 PM

This site is full of facts that negate your whole theorem Judy. Is it your wish that I spend the time dragging you through all the argumentation you've already lost here? That could take a while, and you'd likely just continue to deny it anyway.

View Post


Disregard the above Judy. After reading through page two of this thread, I came to the realization that I don't need to even bother. Everyone else has already corrected you on your misunderstandings.

#37 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 June 2009 - 04:10 PM

Real forensic scientists don't say "Such and such happened." They say "the evidence is (or is not) consistent with such and such". Anybody know why?

That's true, CTD. They don't ever claim to say "I am 100% certain that Mr. X is responsible for this crime." That would only be possible if they were there, after all.

However, based on the evidence, there is often enough certainty in not only their mind, but also the minds of 12 jury members, that Mr. X did indeed perpetrate the crime. On the strength of this kind of evidence, people are often jailed for life. So even though we may not be 100% certain, because we weren't there, we can be comfortable enough in our certainty. Would you agree with that?

View Post

It is not clear we're talking about the same thing. "They", if it be the police officers or the prosecutor, is different from "they" if it be the forensic experts.

Forensics, by its very nature, cannot say what happened. It can only yield evidence which is or is not consistent with a story. It doesn't do much in the way of providing a story in the first place.

Take for example, a shoe print found at a crime scene. It cannot tell you how it got there. It can only indicate that such-and-such type of shoe was present. It cannot tell you who owns the shoe. It cannot indicate whether or not the owner or someone else was wearing the shoe at the time.

Or suppose two people are believed to have been in a fight and one is dead. Blood which does not match either combatant is found. This is inconsistent with the two-party story. (Evidence can be faked, so perhaps one of them somehow brought someone else's blood along?)

Furthermore, forensic science relies upon other historic records in order to even exist. Without documentation from firearms manufacturers, they could not know which type of weapons may or may not be involved?

Forensic crime scene investigation does not exist in a vacuum. It is a supplement to other investigative methods. The testimony of witnesses will always be a factor. With the aforementioned shoe print, there may be thousands of such shoes manufactured; you'll need something to link the specific type of shoe to a given individual. Can you say "witness"?

Another huge problem is that forensic evidence is almost always subject to fakery. Framing someone is how hard, if we only need to obtain some possession of theirs and drop it at the scene?

Real history, recent or long past, must be investigated properly if one is to find out what happened. Discover, verify, and reconcile. The make up a story & look for evidence to misinterpret is support thereof method cannot hope to find truth. It has no intention of doing so. Proper forensic investigation does not proceed that way at all. Legitimate criminal investigation is not analogous to evolutionism. It is also a gross misportrayal of legitimate investigation to characterize it as consisting solely or even primarily of forensics. Even on TV you'll not find a case where no records are consulted and no testimony is involved; it is conceptually impossible.

#38 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 23 June 2009 - 04:17 PM

On one of my favorite shows, CSI (I like the original and CSI New York the best), detectives sift through evidence to catch criminals.

Now, I realize these are only fictional shows.  However, every week they showcase actual scientific methods that real detectives use in the real world every day to catch bad guys.

None of these detectives is usually actually present at the scene of the murders, rapes, burglaries, etc., yet using evidence they are able to piece together a pretty accurate picture of what happened.

My question is, would you consider forensice science to be "real" science?

View Post


Hi Judy,

Interesting topic, so I will take a stab. Forensic science is real science. It is observable and repeatable. Most Christians would agree I think.

However, I think you are missing the boat in the big ocean of your question.

No one is convicted or exonerated by forensic science. People are convicted by either a judge or a jury. That conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt based on all the evidence. A portion of that evidence is forensics. A portion is eye witness testimonials. A portion is expert testimony. And a large portion is lawyer logical and emotional argumentation. All of this together leads to an ajudication.

Now lets say your husband was murdered as you've used already used as an example. Would you feel comfortable if all the forensic evidence pointed its finger towards you? Wouldn't you want an eye witness alibi? Or some expert testimony in your favor? Or wouldn't you want a lawyer to argue your defense? Or would you just rely on the scientific evidence?

You see, that is why our judicial system doesn't just rely on scientific evidence. You shouldn't either.

Evolution is the best naturalistic theory of the origin of the species. I agree. However science ignores other valid explanations and arguments. It ignores eye witness testimony. It ignores prophetic evidence. It ignores science that validates the Biblical record. All on the basis of definition.

If you want to build your house on science, then be my guest. I will build my house on all the evidence, tesimony, and logical arguments by hearing both sides. I have chosen the scriptural explanation as my adjudication. You may choose science. But be aware, science is ignorant......And I mean that literally.

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 June 2009 - 04:21 PM

For more on history, see

http://www.evolution...topic=1984&st=0

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 June 2009 - 04:29 PM

I want to say that both CTD and performedge brought some well worded depth to this conversation. Good posts.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users