Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: A message to those who object to the scientific consensus on origins

  1. #1
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495

    A message to those who object to the scientific consensus on origins

    Many individuals can be placed in prison using various special forms of evidence in lieu of straightforward video footage and eyewitness testimony (e.g., solely with non-visual forms of evidence). There is a plethora of forensic science at society's disposal, relating to DNA, fingerprints, hair, bodily fluids, etc, that can be used to detect who was responsible for a crime. It is inconsistent in the extreme to laud the use of these forensic techniques to convict people when "no was present to observe and no video camera was present to record" the crime in question, while objecting to the scientific consensus on origins because "no was present to observe and no video camera was present to record" the events that the scientific evidence (much of it, ironically, similar to the evidence used to convict people, such as DNA analysis) overwhelmingly supports, which is a favorite tactic of creationists. This is a case of people welcoming the products of science that they like (shiny new gadgets and the ability to detect who perpetrates crimes) while ridiculing science for killing their sacred cows.

    So zealots, put your money where your mouth is and demand the release of all felons whose convictions did not entail eyewitness testimony or video evidence.
    Last edited by minarchist; 05-14-2013 at 02:05 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist
    Many individuals are placed in prison in lieu of video evidence and eyewitness testimony.
    That word you are using... I do not think it means what you think it means.

  3. #3
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    That word you are using... I do not think it means what you think it means.
    Thank you. I fixed it. By initially using an implicit alternative (now made explicit) in that sentence I was unwittingly engaging in semantic drift, which is a natural linguistic evolutionary process.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Thank you. I fixed it. By initially using an implicit alternative (now made explicit) in that sentence I was unwittingly engaging in semantic drift, which is a natural linguistic evolutionary process.
    Yah, well that too.

    Eyewitness testimony, as opposed to science, is arguably the most unreliable means identifying persons.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4848039.html

    http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue...er&tversky.htm

    http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyew...testimony.html

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-eyes-have-it
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 05-14-2013 at 07:44 AM. Reason: Fixed it.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Why is this not in the thread already created (or evolved, HAHA! cu-clunk, clash!) about creationism vs. evolution? (What makes your single rebuttal to a single argument so special that it deserves it's own thread?)

    I admit, I haven't read that thread. I am purposefully avoiding it. But, I'm genuinely curious about the above.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 05-14-2013 at 08:52 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Many individuals can be placed in prison using various special forms of evidence in lieu of straightforward video footage and eyewitness testimony (e.g., solely with non-visual forms of evidence). There is a plethora of forensic science at society's disposal, relating to DNA, fingerprints, hair, bodily fluids, etc, that can be used to detect who was responsible for a crime. It is inconsistent in the extreme to laud the use of these forensic techniques to convict people when "no was present to observe and no video camera was present to record" the crime in question, while objecting to the scientific consensus on origins because "no was present to observe and no video camera was present to record" the events that the scientific evidence (much of it, ironically, similar to the evidence used to convict people, such as DNA analysis) overwhelmingly supports, which is a favorite tactic of creationists. This is a case of people welcoming the products of science that they like (shiny new gadgets and the ability to detect who perpetrates crimes) while ridiculing science for killing their sacred cows.

    So zealots, put your money where your mouth is and demand the release of all felons whose convictions did not entail eyewitness testimony or video evidence.
    Zealots?
    zealots on both sides of the issue resorted to name-calling and scare tactics


    Hmm, the 4A and 5A address the concerns of zealots regards the "conviction" of felons.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I was aware of that when creating the thread, but I included eyewitness testimony because creationists often point to the absence of both eyewitnesses and video footage when discussing natural history. I simply wanted to make the comparison complete.

  8. #8
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Why is this not in the thread already created (or evolved, HAHA! cu-clunk, clash!) about creationism vs. evolution? (What makes your single rebuttal to a single argument so special that it deserves it's own thread?)

    I admit, I haven't read that thread. I am purposefully avoiding it. But, I'm genuinely curious about the above.
    This is a serious cognitive blind spot that creationists have and deserves its own thread. It is the very crux of much, if not most, of the opposition to the scientific consensus on origins.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    There were people who watched Christ die and then rise 3 days later. And it was well documented. As far as age of the Earth is concerned .. why does this concern you so much ... most people believe that the Earth is old but also believe that it was created by a creator. These ideas or facts really do not conflict....or it creates no conflict to most people.

    This thread has no purpose in my mind.

  10. #10
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    There were people who watched Christ die and then rise 3 days later.
    And it was well documented.
    There is zero evidence for this claim outside of the gospels, which together actually constitute a single source (most likely derived from Mark).

    Not that this has anything to do with this thread.

    This thread has no purpose in my mind.
    Of course you'd say that. Religion is about control and the stifling of liberty, so naturally you want to censor me.
    Last edited by minarchist; 05-14-2013 at 01:56 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Science is about control and the stifling of liberty.

    Global warming adherents, that science has been concluded. Liberal efforts to control me via government predicated on saving the planet are far more concern than creationism or atheism. Science is far more detrimental to my daily routine, and yours by the way, than my faith is to me or to you, by a long shot.

    Zealots, regardless of stripe, have little interest in what is important where liberty is concerned. They tend to pick and choose the liberties that are worthy of preserving.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member McLintock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Peculiar,MO
    Posts
    89

    A message to those who object to the scientific consensus on origins

    Science; systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. How is any thing you are saying observed or experimented? You can not test a theory. So you have as much faith in a system as some one who believes there is a Creator.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "Shoot low boys, their ridin' shetland ponies"

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    You presume too much Sir. I have not stated, ever, that creationism is "fact." I have consistently stated that God exists, as well as evolution being verifiable fact. I prefer to believe that God created all and he then let nature have its way after that.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by McLintock View Post
    Science; systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. How is any thing you are saying observed or experimented? You can not test a theory. So you have as much faith in a system as some one who believes there is a Creator.
    The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature, Timothy Ferris 2010 Harper Collins ISBN 978-0-06-078150-7

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Li.../dp/B0044KN08G
    Last edited by Nightmare; 05-14-2013 at 12:37 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Science is about control and the stifling of liberty.

    Global warming adherents, that science has been concluded. Liberal efforts to control me via government predicated on saving the planet are far more concern than creationism or atheism. Science is far more detrimental to my daily routine, and yours by the way, than my faith is to me or to you, by a long shot.

    Zealots, regardless of stripe, have little interest in what is important where liberty is concerned. They tend to pick and choose the liberties that are worthy of preserving.
    It is retarded in the extreme to blame the endeavor of science for the policy prescriptions of statists.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    There is zero evidence for this claim outside of the gospels, which together actually constitute a single source (most likely derived from Mark).

    Not that this has anything to do with this thread.



    Of course you'd say that. Religion is about control and the stifling of liberty, so naturally you want to ce skr me.
    Well, clearly my God is stronger than your God ....

    And why do we puny humans have 2 sets of physical rules .. one for large environment (Newton/Einstein theories) and one for the super small environment? Why cannot we divide by zero?

    Time is not constant ... 1 billion years to you may seem like 1 sec somewhere else....maybe god is riding a surfboard at the speed of light...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by McLintock View Post
    Science; systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. How is any thing you are saying observed or experimented? You can not test a theory. So you have as much faith in a system as some one who believes there is a Creator.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Lol wut? You can't even have a scientific theory without testing. Don't get the general use of theory mixed up with the scientific use of theory. Two very different concepts.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    There were people who watched Christ die and then rise 3 days later. And it was well documented. As far as age of the Earth is concerned .. why does this concern you so much ... most people believe that the Earth is old but also believe that it was created by a creator. These ideas or facts really do not conflict....or it creates no conflict to most people.

    This thread has no purpose in my mind.
    There isn't a single eyewitness account of this (nor any of Jesus' so called miracles) nor did any of the historians of the time record any of the stories of Jesus. Don't confuse the Bible with "well documented eyewitness accounts".

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,277
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    You presume too much Sir. I have not stated, ever, that creationism is "fact." I have consistently stated that God exists, as well as evolution being verifiable fact. I prefer to believe that God created all and he then let nature have its way after that.
    This makes sense to me, but then I do not waste my time worrying about what others may believe.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Science is about control and the stifling of liberty.
    ...

    Science is far more detrimental to my daily routine, and yours by the way, than my faith is to me or to you, by a long shot.

    ...
    Science brought you electricity, modern firearms, working medicine, clean water, automobiles, etc.

    Are you going to stick to the claim it's about control and stifling liberty, when its products have given us some of the greatest liberty we can enjoy? Freedom to move, life expectancy, and everything else that came about due to scientific advances all increase your liberty, yet you praise the darkness of ignorance as if it lets you see.
    Last edited by Tawnos; 05-14-2013 at 03:42 PM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Science brought you electricity, modern firearms, working medicine, clean water, automobiles, etc.
    Confusing technology with science. NASA is a technology demonstrator and not particularly 'science'. Science, physics, prohibits a reactionless bootstrap drive for the Third Law, Conservation of Momentum, violation. "Book him Draino!"
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Many individuals can be placed in prison using various special forms of evidence in lieu of straightforward video footage and eyewitness testimony (e.g., solely with non-visual forms of evidence). There is a plethora of forensic science at society's disposal, relating to DNA, fingerprints, hair, bodily fluids, etc, that can be used to detect who was responsible for a crime. It is inconsistent in the extreme to laud the use of these forensic techniques to convict people when "no was present to observe and no video camera was present to record" the crime in question, while objecting to the scientific consensus on origins because "no was present to observe and no video camera was present to record" the events that the scientific evidence (much of it, ironically, similar to the evidence used to convict people, such as DNA analysis) overwhelmingly supports, which is a favorite tactic of creationists. This is a case of people welcoming the products of science that they like (shiny new gadgets and the ability to detect who perpetrates crimes) while ridiculing science for killing their sacred cows.

    So zealots, put your money where your mouth is and demand the release of all felons whose convictions did not entail eyewitness testimony or video evidence.
    Theories are just that- theories. Until it is proven by repeatable experiments, theories must withstand the test of science. Right now, the Big Bang is a theory. Once upon a time, the world was flat. Once upon a time, the Sun revolved around the Earth. Do not assume that science is always correct.

    And on the other hand, there's a lot of evidence on evolution, even specific examples within the last couple hundred years. During the Industrial Revolution, moths in England turned white to black because the trees in the industrial region turned black. Average heights have increased.

    One thing that biological science and the Bible agree on is it takes a man and woman to procreate.

    Now, as far as the existence of Jesus is concerned, He did exist. There are historical records that state He did exist, but they do not delve into His works. That said, it is not above the realm of possibility that references to Jesus' life would have been destroyed and/or omitted during this time. Few people read. Jewish power was in control and they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Pure Christianity isn't about control, it's about how to live with each other, and basic tenets of civility.

    You can't argue faith. It happens. We all practice it every day. We have faith that the idiots on the roadways won't suddenly veer into our lane and crash into us. It just depends on the source of our faith.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    There isn't a single eyewitness account of this (nor any of Jesus' so called miracles) nor did any of the historians of the time record any of the stories of Jesus. Don't confuse the Bible with "well documented eyewitness accounts".
    Romans wrote of Jesus ... he was quite real...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Confusing technology with science. NASA is a technology demonstrator and not particularly 'science'. Science, physics, prohibits a reactionless bootstrap drive for the Third Law, Conservation of Momentum, violation. "Book him Draino!"
    Do you think technology comes about through immaculate compilation? Last I checked, technology is a result of applied science.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Romans wrote of Jesus ... he was quite real...
    Which Romans? The very likely modified, and possibly entirely forged, Josephus passage in Antiquities of the Jews? What's surprising is that someone who's supposed to be getting great followings and performing miracles isn't mentioned by contemporary historians such as Pliny the Elder.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •