• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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:

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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. ;)
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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 One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA

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.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

McLintock

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
87
Location
NW Wisconsin
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
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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...
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
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.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
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".
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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:

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
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.
 
Top