Jump to content


Photo

Issues With Evidence


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1695 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2011 - 03:29 AM

When a human being is accused of murdering another human he or she is often given a trial. That trial usually takes place in a courtroom with lawyers, witnesses, a judge and a jury. Obviously, if the accused has actually murdered the victim, he or she knows that.

All the evidence that the accused did or didn’t do it is on display right in front of everyone in the court room in the person of the accused. If only we could read minds.

The fact that we can be deceived is the greatest proof that the concept of evidence has some issues. A dead body is evidence and yet the deceased victim cannot tell us who killed him anymore than a fossil (evidence) can tell us that its precursor, a plant or animal evolved or was created.

Why does evo science not want a courtroom trial? Their claims of absolute surety of evolution’s certainty fly in the face of the purpose for the courtroom trial. It is the very reason for such an institution. We simply cannot look at a human being and read their mind. And since that is true of a human that is alive, it is doubly true of a rock (fossil) that is dead and cannot possibly tell us what actually happened.

No! A fossil (evidence) cannot tell us whether it evolved or was created. What is left with no observing witnesses is pure speculation. Evo science must therefore avoid the courtroom trial with lawyers, judge, and jury. With such circumstantial evidence--evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute--their case lacks merit and most likely would be dismissed!

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 January 2011 - 09:04 AM

From my talks with evos they use a courtroom as justification for their lack of empirical evidence.

Some claim that some of the evidence presented in a court case is not "empirical" hence we shouldn't be asking that their evidence for evoluton be empirical.

I tend to say that LAW has nothing to do with Science.. But most don't listen to that :)

#3 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 23 January 2011 - 11:57 AM

Why does evo science not want a courtroom trial?


They actually have had several...

The Scopes trial
Scopes Tral Transcripts

...and more recently...

The Dover trial.
Dover Trial Transcripts


Peace

#4 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1695 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2011 - 01:56 PM

Hi Gilbo

From my talks with evos they use a courtroom as justification for their lack of empirical evidence.

Some claim that some of the evidence presented in a court case is not "empirical" hence we shouldn't be asking that their evidence for evoluton be empirical.

I tend to say that LAW has nothing to do with Science.. But most don't listen to that


The reference you made to "they" in your first sentence of your remark is unclear to me. Is the "they" in refernce to evos or creationists?

The statement, "No one is above the law." would be contested by you? And not everything that comes out of anyone's mouth is the "truth" either. What I am saying is that civlised people have chosen to settle matters of disagreement before peers. In terms of evolution my friend, none of the "evidence" is empiracal!

Since no one has observed evolution, there is no empirical information that evolution transpired just innuendo, speculation and some evo scientist’s word who often does not realize the limits of his knowledge base. There is a high degree of certainty that the human mind is a finite source of information and one can only pull out of the mind what we are taught, teach ourselves and another caveat that which we can create.

I know you may not believe the Bible is the “Word” of God but there is a phenomenon called “suspension of disbelief"which we use when we sit in a darkened theater and watch a movie and emote as if what we were seeing (24fps) was a current reality. We do that also with books of fiction. I am not asking you to do something you have not done on numerous occasions but, just to take the Bible for the story it tells not whether you personally believe it is the word of a God or Who God claims to be in the story. Ok? Nor is there a necessity to believe whether God exists or not. I do assume that you think we exist.

Suspend disbelief and take the Bible’s story just for what it says. So when I reference God or the Bible have that in mind. I will mean what I reference from the Bible from that point of view. According to the story (the Bible) then, God gave man the Ten Commandments. One of those commandments says not to lie. Jesus called Satan a liar and the father (creator) of it! What this shows is that people are capable of prevaricating according to the story.

I am not calling evo science prevaricators. The story also says that there is another category of “information” right before a lie. The book quotes God (remember suspend disbelief) as saying the “Whole world is deceived.” That category is the category I would put evo science’s ideas about evolution into. I think they really “believe” what they say is true!

Well, I disagree with them because as others have posted on here there simply were no eye witnesses to evo--and that by their own admission and out of their own mouths. No one has personally observed evolution. Empiracal information is eyewitness information (observed). Evo science freely admits that evolution takes to long to observe by humans and in my way of looking at it (my opinion) it did not have to happen because what did not happen could not be observed! All that can be reasonably concluded from said fossil "evidence" is that animals existed at the time of their fossilization.

They actually have had several...

The Scopes trial
Scopes Tral Transcripts

...and more recently...

The Dover trial.
Dover Trial Transcripts


Peace

thanks bro.

I know there have been other court cases on other aspects concerning evolution, but these cases usually concern whether creationist science is a religion or not. The case I propose is not about that. It is about evolution being true without reasonable doubt.

Creationist lawyer; You are an evolutionary scientist with several degrees, published and qualify for being an expert witness in your field of understanding Evolutionary Science. Is that correct?

Evo Scientist; Yes that is correct. I believe that evolution is a fact.

Ceationist Lawyer; Now remember sir you are under oath to tell the truth. Do you understand that?

Evo Scientist; Yes, I understand that.

Cretionist Lawyer; You understand then that this trial is not about whether Creation Science is a religion or not. This case is about whether evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you understand that? Do you need any further clarification about the purpose of this case?

Evo Scientist; No I understand.

Creationist lawyer; With that in mind I want you to answer the following question as honestly as you possible can. Have you or any of your associates ever observed evolution transpire? Yes or no?

Evo Scientist; Well if you put it that way, no… But there is fossil evidence that we use to prove...

Creationist Lawyer; Let the court acknowledge exhibit one a fossil. It is claimed to be evidence to support the idea of evolution as a fact!

Now, isn’t it true that what you call evidence is subject to interpretation, speculation and conjecture?

Evo scientist; Well…We don't see it that way.

Creationist Lawyer; Yes or no?

Evo Scientist; If you put it that way… I guess so.

Creationist lawyer; You either observed the formation of this fossil or you didn’t? Did you observe this fossil evolve or even be formed?

Evo scientist. No I did not. But I guess you are saying God did? (courtroom has a burst of laughter).

Creationist Scientist; Your honor I would like to pass this fossil to the jury and see if they might be able to tell if the creature’s body preserved in it was created or evolved? (gives fossil to jury member to examine and pauses his discourse)

Evo scientist; But how would they know?

Creationist Lawyer; Your honor I move to ask that the jury be informed to disregard the witnesses' last remark.

Judge; Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, you are ordered to disregard the witnesses' last remark.

Creationist lawyer; Let me sum it up. It is a professional opinion on your part as an evolutionary biologist currently employed at a prestigious universiity with no bias what so ever and that you do solemly state that you have personally "observed" evolution? Isn't it true that the only thing this fossil can actually prove is that an animal lived sometime ago. That's about it! What's more, it is currently dead and there is no way of knowing if it ever reproduced, or had any ancestors from observing the fossil? Isn't true that the only way that one could say this animal evolved is to conjecture, suppoose and speculate that it evolved. Yes or no?
:)

#5 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 23 January 2011 - 05:30 PM

...thanks bro.

I know there have been other court cases on other aspects concerning evolution, but these cases usually concern whether creationist science is a religion or not. The case I propose is not about that. It is about evolution being true without reasonable doubt.


I understand...but there was a lot of Evo/ID info covered during the Dover trial...very interesting stuff.

Your theoretical transcript has the lawyer demanding Yes/No answers to questions that require a little more explanation.

Lawyer: Did you stop beating your wife yesterday?...Yes or No. (requires a bit more of an explanation)

In most criminal murder cases, the detectives and prosecution witenesses/expert witnesses were not present during the commission of the crime...they can only interpret the evidence.

IMHO, evolution through natural selection is currently the best explanation/theory based on current evidence.

I understand that the debate is about how the evidence is interpreted.

What sent me from an OEC creationist to a theistic evolutionist was the DNA evidence for common ancestry between apes/chimps and man. (i.e. retrovirus's, pseudogenes, fused chromosomes, etc...)

Peace

#6 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 23 January 2011 - 06:45 PM

We are kind of veering toward whether creationism is religion. It's easy to do this since the lawyers for evolution do argue this. They know they can run the creation ship aground into the separation of church and state issue. I believe the creationists lawyers are arguing for freedom of speech, which implies free thought.

My 2 cents. If both sides were honest, both sides have to admit that --scientifically speaking-- their hypotheses are full of assumptions and speculation. So alot of straw men and propaganda are built in to the debate.

Propaganda--As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.


It's root word is "to propagate" which means to disseminate information. However the origin of the word is latin and found in religious history.

Origin:
1710–20;  < NL, short for congregātiō dē propāgandā fidē  congregation for propagating the faith; 


Most lawyers and judges of today were educated in state universities, which only endorse evolution. So do you think it might be a small miracle that students can now ask questions about "alternative origin theories" in their science class in Louisiana?

#7 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 23 January 2011 - 06:53 PM

In the previous post I deviated from the OP in order to respond to the real time court issue that Scanman brought up. But the OP is not actually talking about that. It's making an issue on the evidence itself, as opposed to modern court battles over education. It is namely that many things in evolutionary theory are technically circumstantial evidence.

I do agree. A fossil, for instance, is episodic--that is it shows an episode of an organism being covered in sediment. It doesn't tell us who it's original ancestor was, or the event that was responsible for covering it. Some things are real evidence, but some are not. One of my frustrations in debating origins is the refusal of people to see their own assumptions, based on their worldview. What follows is a never ending search on both sides to find the "knockout punch" evidence, that will finally shut the other side up. However, if one looks far--they will find an assumption and speculation somewhere.

#8 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1695 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2011 - 06:57 PM

I understand...but there was a lot of Evo/ID info covered during the Dover trial...very interesting stuff.

Your theoretical transcript has the lawyer demanding Yes/No answers to questions that require a little more explanation.

Lawyer: Did you stop beating your wife yesterday?...Yes or No. (requires a bit more of an explanation)

In most criminal murder cases, the detectives and prosecution witenesses/expert witnesses were not present during the commission of the crime...they can only interpret the evidence.

IMHO, evolution through natural selection is currently the best explanation/theory based on current evidence.

I understand that the debate is about how the evidence is interpreted.

What sent me from an OEC creationist to a theistic evolutionist was the DNA evidence for common ancestry between apes/chimps and man. (i.e. retrovirus's, pseudogenes, fused chromosomes, etc...)

Peace

View Post

With all do respect to you opinions are not facts. Evo science has changed the definition of the word theory to mean fact. They are pushing the idea that it is an absolute truth that evo happened as they decided. Now you are welcome to your opinion. I don’t fault you for that. But evos are not calling evolution their opinion. Nor is it about the “best” answer.

As I look around the room where I sit I haven’t been able to detect one thing in this room that wasn’t created by a human like myself. Since I have created things as well as you and others, If I wanted animals to exist I would create them not evolve them. Creation is more efficient and can happen in my life span.

The transcript was an anecdote not a literal case—a work of fiction. I took poetic license. :)

You might want to reconsider your position since you believe in God. As far as DNA is concerned compared to chimps, the output of the human mind is so much greater than a chimp that there is no comparison. The whale and some other species have larger brains than us. One atheist member Isabella cited the fact that there is a flower that has more DNA than us humans. Go figure! That puts a different perspective on your DNA argument.

you may want to read the first four books of Daniel. What makes us different than chimps is the spirit that God says he put in us. He took it away from King Nebuchadnezzar and the king became an animal for seven years. I guess God thought he got to big for his britches. We are humans in God’s image because He made us that way not because of DNA code. Now you are not going to argue that we have flowers as ancestors... :D

#9 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1695 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2011 - 07:02 PM

In the previous post I deviated from the OP in order to respond to the real time court issue that Scanman brought up.  But the OP is not actually talking about that.  It's making an issue on the evidence itself, as opposed to modern court battles over education.  It is namely that many things in evolutionary theory are technically circumstantial evidence. 

I do agree.  A fossil, for instance, is episodic--that is it shows an episode of  an organism being covered in sediment.  It doesn't tell us who it's original ancestor was, or the event that was responsible for covering it.  Some things are real evidence, but some are not.  One of my frustrations in debating origins is the refusal of people to see their own assumptions, based on their worldview.  What follows is a never ending search on both sides to find the "knockout punch" evidence, that will finally shut the other side up.  However, if one looks far--they will find an assumption and speculation somewhere.

View Post

You will not get an argument out of me on this. I could not agree with you more!

#10 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 23 January 2011 - 07:18 PM

I do agree.  A fossil, for instance, is episodic--that is it shows an episode of  an organism being covered in sediment.  It doesn't tell us who it's original ancestor was, or the event that was responsible for covering it.  Some things are real evidence, but some are not.  One of my frustrations in debating origins is the refusal of people to see their own assumptions, based on their worldview.  What follows is a never ending search on both sides to find the "knockout punch" evidence, that will finally shut the other side up.  However, if one looks far--they will find an assumption and speculation somewhere.


I agree too!
There will never be a 'knockout' punch...

Although, regarding fossils, a lot of information is gleaned from the matrix it is incorporated in. (i.e. was it covered in silt?, ash?, etc..., what sediment layer is above or below it?, what other fossils were found with it?, what was it''s orientation?, etc..etc..etc...)

Peace

#11 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 23 January 2011 - 07:22 PM

Mike,

Your OP is making an argument, which I reiterated in my previous post.

OP

...The fact that we can be deceived is the greatest proof that the concept of evidence has some issues. A dead body is evidence and yet the deceased victim cannot tell us who killed him anymore than a fossil (evidence) can tell us that its precursor, a plant or animal evolved or was created.

....No! A fossil (evidence) cannot tell us whether it evolved or was created. What is left with no observing witnesses is pure speculation.


But you said this also, which tends to give an opening for the history of courtroom battles concerning evolution, which Scanman has now brought out.

Why does evo science not want a courtroom trial? Their claims of absolute surety of evolution’s certainty fly in the face of the purpose for the courtroom trial....

Evo science must therefore avoid the courtroom trial with lawyers, judge, and jury.


I think this is the heart of your argument, if I am hearing you correctly.

With such circumstantial evidence--evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute--their case lacks merit and most likely would be dismissed!


You are saying evolution, which overwhelmingly insists on the truth of their "science" is circumstantial.

I agree with the premise, and have for a long time, that evidence for evolution is circumstantial.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

There are many areas in the debate of origins where two interpretations are concluded using the same evidence. An example is homology. The same evidence produces two conclusions--> common ancestry (evo) or similar design (ID). This is technically circumstantial evidence in a legal sense.

#12 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1695 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2011 - 07:32 PM

I agree too!
There will never be a 'knockout' punch...

Although, regarding fossils, a lot of information is gleaned from the matrix it is incorporated in. (i.e. was it covered in silt?, ash?, etc..., what sediment layer is above or below it?, what other fossils were found with it?, what was it''s orientation?, etc..etc..etc...)

Peace

View Post

But still my friend the point is one can not tell it evolved nor who it mated with nor its offspring. That it evolved or was created as AFJ so aptly stated could only be determined by adding the spin of one's worldview. I mean if a biased creationist like me believed from the evidence presented it was created I would say so. But, I can't. I was not there to watch how it came ito existence. And if I can't say how it came into existence how can they say it is a fact that it evolved. They cannot determine that it evovlved from the evidence given (the fossil).

Peace to you also.

#13 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 23 January 2011 - 07:39 PM

As for the issue of evidence. Many evidences in evolution are presented "in force." That is, because of the hugely funded, government endorsed, educationally propagated effort, a new popular scenario/find/premise --or "fact" battling creationism, is established quickly and disseminated before the smaller, less funded, ID and creationist movements can ajust and fairly rebuttal.

It is kind of like one chess player trying to play 10 chess games at a time.

The changeability of evolution is defended as "good science" yet the same grace is not afforded to their counterparts who put forth a theory. Rebuttals by evos are considered final say--followed by a quick disqualification of the entire idea of ID or creationism.

#14 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1695 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2011 - 07:48 PM

This is the third post concerning the OP, which several issues in it.  I will address the issue of evidence.  Many evidences in evolution are presented "in force."  That is, because of the hugely funded, government endorsed, educationally propagated effort, a new popular scenario/find/premise --or "fact" battling creationism, is established quickly and disseminated before the smaller, less funded, ID and creationist movements can ajust and fairly rebuttal.

It is kind of like one chess player trying to play 10 chess games at a time. 

The changeability of evolution is defended as "good science" yet the same grace is not afforded to their counterparts who put forth a theory.  Rebuttals by evos are considered final say--followed by a quick disqualification of the entire idea of ID or creationism.

View Post

Another innteresting tidbit. Thanks. What I see in science is what religion had years ago. Every dog has his day. What they have is what I call the scientific seal of approval. All they have to do is say "That's not scientifiic." That's the end oof that. No further debate required or will be allowed. You are dismissed! So go!

They remind me of a bucnh of kids. Nah na na na na na. "That's not scientific! So there!" Then they put their thumbs in the ears wiggle their hands back and forth stick their tongue out and make a face at creationists. "We have government funding and you don't!" :lol: :lol: :lol: .

#15 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 23 January 2011 - 07:51 PM

I agree too!
There will never be a 'knockout' punch...

Although, regarding fossils, a lot of information is gleaned from the matrix it is incorporated in. (i.e. was it covered in silt?, ash?, etc..., what sediment layer is above or below it?, what other fossils were found with it?, what was it''s orientation?, etc..etc..etc...)

Peace

View Post

I have to agree with you also on the matrix scanman. That's why, really, if I had the money, I would go back to school and get a double major in molecular biology and geology. :lol: Just to get into the lab. I've done alot of reading, but I want to see it for myself. I'm almost 50 now and I don't want to go back into debt.

But the few amateur observations I've made on limestone do not jive with the conventional wisdom. I have alot of questions.

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 January 2011 - 09:06 PM

They actually have had several...

The Scopes trial
Scopes Tral Transcripts

...and more recently...

The Dover trial.
Dover Trial Transcripts
Peace

View Post


Was not the Scopes trial based on evidence of a tooth that turned out to be an extinct pigs tooth?

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 January 2011 - 09:14 PM

Hi Gilbo

The reference you made to "they" in your first sentence of your remark is unclear to me. Is the "they" in refernce to evos or creationists?

The statement, "No one is above the law." would be contested by you? And not everything that comes out of anyone's mouth is the "truth" either. What I am saying is that civlised people have chosen to settle matters of disagreement before peers. In terms of evolution my friend, none of the "evidence" is empiracal!

Since no one has observed evolution, there is no empirical information that evolution transpired just innuendo, speculation and some evo scientist’s word who often does not realize the limits of his knowledge base. There is a high degree of certainty that the human mind is a finite source of information and one can only pull out of the mind what we are taught, teach ourselves and another caveat that which we can create.

I know you may not believe the Bible is the “Word” of God but there is a phenomenon called “suspension of disbelief"which we use when we sit in a darkened theater and watch a movie and emote as if what we were seeing (24fps) was a current reality. We do that also with books of fiction. I am not asking you to do something you have not done on numerous occasions but, just to take the Bible for the story it tells not whether you personally believe it is the word of a God or Who God claims to be in the story. Ok? Nor is there a necessity to believe whether God exists or not. I do assume that you think we exist.

Suspend disbelief and take the Bible’s story just for what it says. So when I reference God or the Bible have that in mind. I will mean what I reference from the Bible from that point of view. According to the story (the Bible) then, God gave man the Ten Commandments. One of those commandments says not to lie. Jesus called Satan a liar and the father (creator) of it! What this shows is that people are capable of prevaricating according to the story.

I am not calling evo science prevaricators. The story also says that there is another category of “information” right before a lie. The book quotes God (remember suspend disbelief) as saying the “Whole world is deceived.” That category is the category I would put evo science’s ideas about evolution into. I think they really “believe” what they say is true!

Well, I disagree with them because as others have posted on here there simply were no eye witnesses to evo--and that by their own admission and out of their own mouths. No one has personally observed evolution. Empiracal information is eyewitness information (observed). Evo science freely admits that evolution takes to long to observe by humans and in my way of looking at it (my opinion) it did not have to happen because what did not happen could not be observed! All that can be reasonably concluded from said fossil "evidence" is that animals existed at the time of their fossilization.


View Post


"The reference you made to "they" in your first sentence of your remark is unclear to me. Is the "they" in refernce to evos or creationists?"

I thought it was quite clear... They as in the evo's I just stated, the ones I was talking to...


"The statement, "No one is above the law." would be contested by you? And not everything that comes out of anyone's mouth is the "truth" either. What I am saying is that civlised people have chosen to settle matters of disagreement before peers. In terms of evolution my friend, none of the "evidence" is empiracal!"

Yes I already said that the evidence for evolution is not empirical. However the evidence in a courtroom need not be empirical either, hence they, (the evos), claim that because courtrooms do not necessarily need empirical evidence then neither do they, (the evos), need empirical evidence.

Thus I say to them, that Law, (as in the court of Law, which is decided by MEN, a jury), is not the same as science, (which should be based on factual information, and thus be empirical).

I wasn't saying that there is empirical evidence I was saying that some evos use a court room trial as a justification for not needing empirical evidence. Which is exactly what I said before.

"From my talks with evos they use a courtroom as justification for their lack of empirical evidence.

Some claim that some of the evidence presented in a court case is not "empirical" hence we shouldn't be asking that their evidence for evoluton be empirical."


I never said anything about my views on the Bible, so I don't really know why it has come into question?

The last part I totally agree with you.

#18 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 January 2011 - 09:21 PM

Was not the Scopes trial based on evidence of a tooth that turned out to be an extinct pigs tooth?

View Post


Scopes was a loss for evolutionary science. It wasn't creationists who showed the tooth was from a pig either.

#19 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1695 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:15 PM

I thought it was quite clear... They as in the evo's I just stated, the ones I was talking to...

Ok. Sorry I misunderstood you (pesky code). I think I see what you mean. I remember my English teacher always reminding us about unclear antecedents. Now I know why.

Yes I already said that the evidence for evolution is not empirical. However the evidence in a courtroom need not be empirical either, hence they, (the evos), claim that because courtrooms do not necessarily need empirical evidence then neither do they, (the evos), need empirical evidence.


By the same token then Christians should be able use that line of reasoning and use the universe by inference as proof that God exists. I think they (evos) are using a double standard.

The function of a courtroom is for an aid in deciding what "truth" is in a situation where there is little or no empirical evidence. Using their (evos) logic the only place to discuss evo would be in a courtroom situation. Evolution then would be sujective "truth." It would not objective truth as they seem to claim.

Thus I say to them, that Law, (as in the court of Law, which is decided by MEN, a jury), is not the same as science, (which should be based on factual information, and thus be empirical).

This cleared up my confusion also. We see it the same. Here is what my argument with evos is all about. What I (we) think is an opinion. What they think is "observed" and therefore the truth. "Hey! Wait," I say. "I observed the same fossil and can't tell whther it was created or evovled but you guys say it "definitely" evolved. What kind of magic trick is that?"

I wasn't saying that there is empirical evidence I was saying that some evos use a court room trial as a justification for not needing empirical evidence. Which is exactly what I said before.

"From my talks with evos they use a courtroom as justification for their lack of empirical evidence.

Some claim that some of the evidence presented in a court case is not "empirical" hence we shouldn't be asking that their evidence for evoluton be empirical."

I see what you are saying. Again sounds like they have a double standard.

I never said anything about my views on the Bible, so I don't really know why it has come into question?


Your profile lists you as an agnostic that’s why I used the thing about suspension of disbelief. Actually you do come across as a creationist most of the time—no problem for me. Be what you want to be.

The last part I totally agree with you.

Hey I am not an agreement freak! I can handle disagreement without a meltdown or an atempt at negative control tacticts. :lol: I know you are all to out to get me. You are all plotting. You took a vote last night and decided to be against me didn't you and without any empiracal evidence either. :lol: :lol: :lol:

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:20 PM

Scopes was a loss for evolutionary science.  It wasn't creationists who showed the tooth was from a pig either.

View Post


Science would never accept a debunk from a creationist so the point is mute. To prove this can you name one that was accepted? Point made.

With due respect, TE's are Christians who are more worried about being accepted by science more than God. I have yet to see a TE show where God's word even implies God used evolution. So the only logical explanation is being accepted by the world view of what truth is as being more important. And that some how God will accept that. Evolution in turn becomes god for the reason that it's put above God and dictates truth to God. Giving man more power of opinion of truth than God.

Example: If the Bible says this, and evolution disagrees. Which will you accept in your heart as truth? And if you deny one to accept the other, what are you actually calling the one you denied? If there can be only one truth, then your acceptance of evolution in your heart also makes God a liar in your heart. How else will you be able to explain to God your rejection of His word when asked point blank?

Will you use Darwin's book? The evidence you can observe only? What do you think the response will be when God says: You have my word, what was your problem? This is called erring from truth on purpose because there is no excuse when you have access to God's word.

James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

The brethren cannot err from truth unless he has access to it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users