Jump to content


Photo

C S I


  • Please log in to reply
199 replies to this topic

#41 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 June 2009 - 05:20 PM

http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=100831831 :lol:


"The NAS says studies show CSI viewers — and even judges and lawyers — are under the impression that the techniques they see on the show are science at work. They aren't." ;) :o :o

http://www.reason.co...ter/122464.html :o

"America’s forensics system, the part of our criminal justice system responsible for scientific examinations of crime-scene evidence like fingerprints and DNA, is rife with errors."

Oh, my!!! This is sounding more and more like evolution!

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 June 2009 - 05:22 PM

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

View Post



Yes! Well, at least you have me to cover the more shallow and base aspects of the topic :lol:

#43 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 - 05:27 PM

Yes! Well, at least you have me to cover the more shallow and base aspects of the topic  :o

View Post

I knew I was going to get flack like this for that comment. :lol: ;)

#44 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 - 05:31 PM

http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=100831831  :lol:
"The NAS says studies show CSI viewers — and even judges and lawyers — are under the impression that the techniques they see on the show are science at work. They aren't.;)  :o  :o

http://www.reason.co...ter/122464.html  :o

"America’s forensics system, the part of our criminal justice system responsible for scientific examinations of crime-scene evidence like fingerprints and DNA, is rife with errors."

Oh, my!!! This is sounding more and more like evolution!

View Post

Well, now I have to give you a thumbs up. Those are very interesting articles. Now this goes to show how people's minds get turned into moldable jello sitting in front of the tube night after night. If you can control the media you can control the masses.

#45 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 June 2009 - 05:48 PM

Hi again Judy,

I'm seeing a common trend in posts that I wanted to address and hopefully quell before it goes any further.

Many people here seem to think that science comes to the table with evolution already 'proved' and this makes for a biased 'case'. Now in this day and age that is certainly the case, but what's wrong with this assumption is that people seem to think it has always been that way.

People need to remember there was a time when the majority believed in creation and not evolution. Truthfully, there was a time when people came to the table with a biased towards creation and against evolution. This is the pivotal moment, because when science was applied at this point in history creation was found very wanting and anyone who reads these forums with an unbiased eye will soon see the same.

As science improves it is worth applying new techniques to old cases to see if we get different results. The question is, how many times do we go over the same 'cold case' before we accept that we got the right murderer?

Regards,

Arch.

#46 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2009 - 08:07 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


If you didn't kill your spouse, it's an excellent idea to let a forensic scientist in. DNA testing of someone else on a murder weapon is enough to convict in many cases.

And please creationists, do try to find loopholes in DNA evidence.

#47 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 - 08:14 PM

Hi again Judy,

I'm seeing a common trend in posts that I wanted to address and hopefully quell before it goes any further.

Many people here seem to think that science comes to the table with evolution already 'proved' and this makes for a biased 'case'. Now in this day and age that is certainly the case, but what's wrong with this assumption is that people seem to think it has always been that way.

People need to remember there was a time when the majority believed in creation and not evolution. Truthfully, there was a time when people came to the table with a biased towards creation and against evolution. This is the pivotal moment, because when science was applied at this point in history creation was found very wanting and anyone who reads these forums with an unbiased eye will soon see the same.

As science improves it is worth applying new techniques to old cases to see if we get different results. The question is, how many times do we go over the same 'cold case' before we accept that we got the right murderer?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


You word this like what science is doing, in the case of evolution, is some type of revenge for people whom did the same thing for creation. Does two wrongs make a right?

If anything, science should have learned something from this instead of repeating it. You make this sound as if the tide being turned on bias makes these actions worthy, okay, and justified regardless if it is even scientific.

Question: What makes it a pivotal moment to repeat the wrong doings of another person or group? If anything, you learn from your own mistakes and the mistakes of others, then set the example. Not repeat them.

#48 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:54 PM

You word this like what science is doing, in the case of evolution, is some type of revenge for people whom did the same thing for creation. Does two wrongs make a right?

View Post


You've completely missed the point of this and turned it into a moral war. There was no wrong and right in terms of morals.

If anything, science should have learned something from this instead of repeating it. You make this sound as if the tide being turned on bias makes these actions worthy, okay, and justified regardless if it is even scientific.

View Post


Again you miss the point. It was worthy, okay and justified because it was scientific, not regardless. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's just bad luck that science disagrees with the Bible. It wasn't the intention.

Question: What makes it a pivotal moment to repeat the wrong doings of another person or group? If anything, you learn from your own mistakes and the mistakes of others, then set the example. Not repeat them.

View Post


It wasn't pivotal because of wrong doings. It was pivotal because despite the popular belief being weighed against evolution it took the scientific community by storm. When so much was weighed against it, how can you explain that evolution has now become the scientific standard? Seriously, I'd like to know how you think that something that is (in your mind) so obviously wrong can become a standard.

Regards,

Arch.

#49 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 24 June 2009 - 12:04 AM

You've completely missed the point of this and turned it into a moral war. There was no wrong and right in terms of morals.
Again you miss the point. It was worthy, okay and justified because it was scientific, not regardless. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's just bad luck that science disagrees with the Bible. It wasn't the intention.
It wasn't pivotal because of wrong doings. It was pivotal because despite the popular belief being weighed against evolution it took the scientific community by storm. When so much was weighed against it, how can you explain that evolution has now become the scientific standard? Seriously, I'd like to know how you think that something that is (in your mind) so obviously wrong can become a standard.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


When people want an alternative to believe in, anything they can make look better is great. But majority rule does not make a new truth or a new reality.

I accept what I do because it makes more sense. How? If all things happened by all natural physical laws, then those same laws would answer all questions about origins and life. And we could repeat each process in a lab. But we cannot. That's because these same laws won't allow it because that is not how it happened. And these problems that have been there for so long don't look like they are going away anytime soon.

Miller may have made 70-80% of the building blocks for life. But is it not kinda strange that every step in the direction of proving evolution has parts needed that end up not being made (missing)? There is a 20-30% gap to fill in Miller's experiment. And also no life was created. Dead matter to live matter is a huge gap that needs to be filled.

#50 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 June 2009 - 12:33 AM

When people want an alternative to believe in, anything they can make look better is great. But majority rule does not make a new truth or a new reality.

View Post


I agree, but you've only half answered my question (and I thank you for that). The other half is the 'why' has evolution become the standard? It doesn't make sense to me that virtually the entire world can believe in a scientific theory that is (again, in your opinion) completely fabricated.

I accept what I do because it makes more sense. How? If all things happened by all natural physical laws, then those same laws would answer all questions about origins and life. And we could repeat each process in a lab. But we cannot.

View Post


I've linked a couple of basic articles that outline how this is being done. Sure it's not 100% successful yet but it's early days. Somehow I doubt that Newton wrote his laws in a week, just as the Bible took thousands of years to compile in its current form. Even you admit there has been success:

Miller may have made 70-80% of the building blocks for life...There is a 20-30% gap to fill in Miller's experiment.

View Post


Only 30%? That means we're much more than halfway. I agree it's far from conclusive, but I'd also say that's pretty successful too. But the reaction from creationists is "It hasn't been done yet. That means it will never be done". Will you still be saying the same thing when it's 99% done?

Regards,

Arch.

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 24 June 2009 - 02:18 AM

And please creationists, do try to find loopholes in DNA evidence.

View Post


Or evolution. Because if you do, it'll unravel like a cheap sweater ;)


Do you realize how silly that last sentence in your post was? If science is about finding facts, why would you not want to correct problems in DNA evidence? Would this not make it better in the long run? :lol:

#52 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 June 2009 - 03:58 AM

Or evolution. Because if you do, it'll unravel like a cheap sweater  ;)
Do you realize how silly that last sentence in your post was?  If science is about finding facts, why would you not want to correct problems in DNA evidence? Would this not make it better in the long run?  :lol:

View Post


When I first read this quote I thought the same thing Ron, but it was only when you commented on it I read it properly.

And please creationists, do try to find loopholes in DNA evidence.


To me it sounds more like Anghellik9 is daring you to have a go :o

Regards,

Arch.

#53 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 24 June 2009 - 04:27 AM

Hi again Judy,

I'm seeing a common trend in posts that I wanted to address and hopefully quell before it goes any further.

Many people here seem to think that science comes to the table with evolution already 'proved' and this makes for a biased 'case'. Now in this day and age that is certainly the case, but what's wrong with this assumption is that people seem to think it has always been that way.
People need to remember there was a time when the majority believed in creation and not evolution. Truthfully, there was a time when people came to the table with a biased towards creation and against evolution. This is the pivotal moment, because when science was applied at this point in history creation was found very wanting and anyone who reads these forums with an unbiased eye will soon see the same.

As science improves it is worth applying new techniques to old cases to see if we get different results. The question is, how many times do we go over the same 'cold case' before we accept that we got the right murderer?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Nothing like creating one giant strawman, and then tearing it down.

The real question is, why don't you take some of the arguments that have been made prior, and then deal with them rather than falaciously creating an argument like you did?

#54 perspective

perspective

    Newcomer

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

Posted 24 June 2009 - 10:34 AM

This one is for Arch,

Here is what does not make sense to me. Why is it SOOOOO hard to create life in a lab through chemical processes, yet it is supposed that it happened all by itslef, by chance 4-5 billion years ago? :o It seems to me that something that can happen all by itslef should be easy to duplicate. We all know the answer to this one. Life will never be formed from chemical processes because God alone is the author of life. However, science is desperate to prove this wrong. Why? Because they must in order to fit that the physical, material world is sufficient to explain all the phenomena of this Universe. Proving life can form spontaneously is the Evolutionist crack pipe. They just can't kick the habbit.

#55 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 June 2009 - 11:15 AM

Proving life can form spontaneously is the Evolutionist crack pipe. They just can't kick the habbit.

View Post

Are they like closet junkies? They tell the world that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis and they can stop anytime they want but secretly they're addicted to the dream of the argumentative power that will come from the first 'reasonable' Frankenstein cell?

#56 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

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

Posted 24 June 2009 - 01:01 PM

Hi again Judy,

I'm seeing a common trend in posts that I wanted to address and hopefully quell before it goes any further.

Many people here seem to think that science comes to the table with evolution already 'proved' and this makes for a biased 'case'. Now in this day and age that is certainly the case, but what's wrong with this assumption is that people seem to think it has always been that way.

People need to remember there was a time when the majority believed in creation and not evolution. Truthfully, there was a time when people came to the table with a biased towards creation and against evolution. This is the pivotal moment, because when science was applied at this point in history creation was found very wanting and anyone who reads these forums with an unbiased eye will soon see the same.

As science improves it is worth applying new techniques to old cases to see if we get different results. The question is, how many times do we go over the same 'cold case' before we accept that we got the right murderer?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Thanks for all your thoughtful input, Arch. Many of the things I've tried to express, you've said, only better than I could have. And probably more politely too.

You're absolutely correct saying that Creationists accuse evolutionists of being blind to any and all evidence that may contradict their beloved theory. That may be because that is how Creationists operate. They have an agenda that they must hold fast to, or their perception of the world will fall apart.

I'm not saying that it's difficult to find seemingly scientific evidence that will prop up the Creationist's agenda. For example, we all see a lot of fossils, so they are able to say "Aha! These bones were obviously all laid down by a worldwide flood 4000 years ago!" On the surface, this would seem to be a reasonable explanation - to a 4th grader. A person with an open and honest scientific mind, however, would not be content to stop at surface appearances. A person lacking an agenda will go where the evidence leads him. They will not be content to collect a bunch of superficial evidence that backs up their favorite preconceived notions.

#57 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 June 2009 - 01:25 PM

I'm not saying that it's difficult to find seemingly scientific evidence that will prop up the Creationist's agenda.  For example, we all see a lot of fossils, so they are able to say "Aha! These bones were obviously all laid down by a worldwide flood 4000 years ago!"  On the surface, this would seem to be a reasonable explanation - to a 4th grader.  A person with an open and honest scientific mind, however, would not be content to stop at surface appearances.  A person lacking an agenda will go where the evidence leads him.  They will not be content to collect a bunch of superficial evidence that backs up their favorite preconceived notions.

View Post

The only problem is that we're providing evidence while evolutionists provide amnesia and talking points.

On the surface, this would seem to be a reasonable explanation - to a 4th grader.

View Post

Don't forget those of us that only have an intellectual capacity of a fourth grader, like four of your siblings. :o

What do you think did it for Dr. Jerry Bergman? He was an atheistic evolutionist with a distaste for religion and yet he followed the evidence... huh! :huh:

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 24 June 2009 - 01:36 PM

This ain't hide & seek. It's not cheating to peek once in a while.

#59 perspective

perspective

    Newcomer

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

Posted 24 June 2009 - 01:51 PM

I'm not saying that it's difficult to find seemingly scientific evidence that will prop up the Creationist's agenda.  For example, we all see a lot of fossils, so they are able to say "Aha! These bones were obviously all laid down by a worldwide flood 4000 years ago!"  On the surface, this would seem to be a reasonable explanation - to a 4th grader.  A person with an open and honest scientific mind, however, would not be content to stop at surface appearances.  A person lacking an agenda will go where the evidence leads him.  They will not be content to collect a bunch of superficial evidence that backs up their favorite preconceived notions.

View Post


I just feel very compelled to jump in here. I must say, this arguement sounds like something a Creationist would say about evolutionist. Did you just switch words and repost this from a creationist? :o WE ALL are looking at the evidence based on what we suppose happened in the past. Since none of us were around to see the geography being laid down, we can only see the evidence and interpret what happened. The difference is, we have someone who was there and wrote the history for us, and surprise, surprise the evidence matches the history. Now what you have is guess work and conjectures. You have theories and unfounded, unscientific stories that have been proven false. (birds evolved from dinosaurs, life came from simple chemical reactions, fossils take millions of years to produce, rocks take millions of years to form, etc. etc. etc.) All these things were once taught as fact and have been proven false by the very science you hold up so highly as the foundation of your religion. So yes, we have very different interpretations of the evidence. The question is which one is right. The history as told by God which science has yet to prove false. OR the always changing, self defeating, unreliable story about the past to which no evolutionist has ever seen.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 June 2009 - 02:08 PM

The difference is, we have someone who was there and wrote the history for us, and surprise, surprise the evidence matches the history

View Post

Thanks again for the well thought out post. Now lets hedge off the snarking that this statement will draw. Yes, of course you must believe that the Words of the Bible are inspired and no you can't simply conduct a lab experiment to see if there is a spetral-trail, al-la Ghostbusters, on the pages of a Bible but you can see if the accounts of scripture reflect the authorship of an out-of-worldly entity like God by comparing what it says to data and seeing if it stands out with a quality that can only be attributed to an all knowing all powerful God, and it does, but it still requires belief.

This step shouldn't be too difficult for an evolutionist since they have faith in all kinds of ideas that violate the most basal laws of science. Evolutionists have a faith and Christians have a faith. I have yet to hear a good reason for Christians to leave their faith for the evolution faith. Anybody?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users