Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The smoldering of EVC
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 168 (715171)
01-02-2014 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
12-31-2013 7:36 AM


Re: The smoldering of EvC
It's a lost cause to try to correct the likes of you but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.
She even flat out stated that she didn't know much about geology and wasn't interested in knowing much.
I didn't just say Geology I think I said Old Earth Geology or something like that, because I've read a LOT in basic Geology, and found I already knew some 80% of Dr. A's course when he was posting it here.
What I don't know very well and don't have any interest in knowing is the TIME SCALE with all its ridiculous names which are so utterly meaningless, from "Pre Cambrian" on up.
THAT is not the same thing you are so slimily sleazily suggesting I said.
It's certainly not the "science" here that we creationists suffer from, it's the misrepresentations and the idiotic purely imaginative speculative answers that are taken for gospel over anything we offer about anything. ALL you guys have IS speculation and the POWER TO ENFORCE it.
No creationist should ever come here expecting a fair hearing. You should have a sign up at the top clearly warning them of that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 12-31-2013 7:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by vimesey, posted 01-02-2014 5:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 01-02-2014 7:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 62 by JonF, posted 01-02-2014 9:57 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 64 by roxrkool, posted 01-02-2014 11:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 50 of 168 (715176)
01-02-2014 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by vimesey
01-02-2014 5:49 AM


Re: The smoldering of EvC
You guys just don't get it. You CANNOT apply classical scientific method to the UNWITNESSED PAST. ALL you have is your theories and speculations about the facts and evidence, and the facts and evidence are subject to other interpretations than yours -- you just refuse to consider the other interpretations -- it's so easy to conjure up a plausible sounding objection you don't have to prove, and your imagination trumps anybody else's because it's the imagination of an Old Earther or an Evolutionist, not because it has any more intrinsic merit. That is all that's going on on the Flood thread. That and some of the most outrageous misinterpretations a person just gets worn out with them. You can multiply your speculations and interweave them and believe them all and even call them Fact, but you CANNOT prove them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by vimesey, posted 01-02-2014 5:49 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by vimesey, posted 01-02-2014 8:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 67 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-02-2014 11:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2014 3:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 85 by roxrkool, posted 01-02-2014 5:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 146 by Pressie, posted 10-20-2017 8:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 52 of 168 (715178)
01-02-2014 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
01-02-2014 7:42 AM


Re: The smoldering of EvC
As has been said before, too bad you don't seem to remember such things, Creationists hardly ever share the same point of view or argue the same issues. I could not expect another Creationist to join in on my argument, it's something I've worked on for a long time on my own. It's sad but we are therefore of just about no use to each other.
The reason for unanimity among those on the science side is not a result of any effort to "harmonize with each other." It comes from basing one's views upon evidence.
There's that recitation of the Creed again. What a lie from the pit of Hell that is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 01-02-2014 7:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 01-02-2014 8:13 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 65 by herebedragons, posted 01-02-2014 11:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 68 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-02-2014 12:08 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2014 3:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 105 of 168 (715399)
01-05-2014 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
01-02-2014 8:27 AM


The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
The many ways it's possible to completely misread something I write continues to astonish me and I know it's a lost cause to try again now so why am I trying? Aaagh. I don't know. As crazy as all of you I guess.
The phrase "unwitnessed past" seems to have thrown a bunch of you into some kind of mental swamp. Would it help if I changed it to "prehistoric past?" I shudder at the possibilities for garbling that one too.
I get the utterly irrelevant response from Jon that "witnesses are notoriously unreliable" as if that had anything whatever to do with the point, and from Vimesey oh gosh what was it he said that made my ulcer act up? Some idea I think the scientist must have been there to witness it? It could make a person long for the forgetfulness of total senility. Ah bliss.
I don't know why creationists keep repeating this silly idea about unobserved past events being indecipherable or uninterpretable. They must be terribly outraged every time someone's convicted by forensic evidence.
Sigh. Pass the Mylanta please.
Criminal Forensics is NOT about the UNWITNESSED / PREHISTORIC PAST. There are plenty of witnesses of all kinds to help the forensic investigator decipher the clues of a case. There are legal documents, case histories, and yes even scientific documents that may help in a particular case and are in the sense I'm using the word "witnesses." There are also people who may have known the victim or might know something about the circumstances, who may be tracked down and interviewed, there are all kinds of potential witnesses in such cases. There may be surveillance camera footage these days, I mean there's TONS of stuff available because it all goes on within our own time frame in which billions of PEOPLE, and their writings and their technological capabilities, are all potential witnesses of some aspect or another of the case in hand.
But Geology, oh I guess I should say Historical Geology, thanks to Roxie for the interesting paper she linked somewhere on that subject, Historical Geology studies things that exist in a time frame where there are no witnesses of any sort whatever. Well, there IS the Biblical account of course, but for all intents and purposes Historical Geology proceeds as if it didn't exist, alas, so since it doesn't exist then there are NO witnesses of any sort whatever to help them out.
It's NOT that you cannot know ANYTHING AT ALL about the situations of the unwitnessed / prehistoric past, of course not. You certainly know from the fossil record, for instance, that at some time in the past creatures walked the earth that no longer exist in our modern world. But all the hooha about how and when they lived is just wild interpretation, which you can get away with because there are no witnesses in the sense I'm using that word to correct you if you're wrong. No dinosaur wrote an account of the Great Extinction event as he saw it coming, as the sky was darkening and his fellow creatures were suffocating. You CAN go on multiplying error indefinitely because of the -- shall we say -- flexibility of interpretations, and the momentum gained by the particular interpretive scheme you've adopted that is shared by all your colleagues.
Oh how I dread the nonsense THIS post is going to elicit. Aaagh.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 01-02-2014 8:27 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dogmafood, posted 01-05-2014 8:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 8:59 AM Faith has replied
 Message 108 by JonF, posted 01-05-2014 8:59 AM Faith has replied
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 10:39 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 119 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2014 3:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2014 5:59 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 112 of 168 (715430)
01-05-2014 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by JonF
01-05-2014 8:59 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
It's irrelevant, Jon. You don't seem to realize that human witnesses are what you rely on for all your knowledge. Forensic data is no different, it still has to be interpreted by human beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by JonF, posted 01-05-2014 8:59 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ringo, posted 01-05-2014 2:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 121 by JonF, posted 01-05-2014 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 168 (715431)
01-05-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
01-05-2014 8:59 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
The very fact that you propose that I discuss the difference between the analysis of clues from last week and clues from the prehistoric past tells me such an undertaking would require more than Mylanta. In the cultural context of the former, which was the whole point of my post, you have all kinds of witness corroboration possible that you don't have with the latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 8:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 2:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 168 (715434)
01-05-2014 2:06 PM


Forensic science unreliability
As I said, I knew it was a lost cause to comment on this. Yeah rocks are "witnesses" but rocks have to be interpreted. Sigh.
By the way, the Wikipedia article on forensic science has a section on its lack of reliability:
Controversies[edit]
Questions about forensic science, fingerprint evidence and the assumption behind these disciplines have been brought to light in some publications,[25][26] including in the New York Post.[27] The article stated that "No one has proved even the basic assumption: That everyone's fingerprint is unique."[27] The article also stated that "Now such assumptions are being questioned - and with it may come a radical change in how forensic science is used by police departments and prosecutors."[27] Law professor Jessica Gabel said on NOVA that forensic science, "lacks the rigors, the standards, the quality controls and procedures that we find, usually, in science."[28]
On 25 June 2009 the Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts stating that crime laboratory reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for creating them give testimony and subject themselves to cross-examination. The Supreme Court cited the National Academies report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States[29] in their decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the National Research Council report in his assertion that "Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation."
In 2009, scientists indicated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence therefore suggesting it is possible to falsely accuse or acquit a person or persons using forged evidence.[22]
Although forensic science has greatly enhanced investigators ability to solve crimes, they have limitations and must be scrutinized in and out of the courtroom to avoid wrongful convictions, which have happened.[30]

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 168 (715435)
01-05-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dogmafood
01-05-2014 8:30 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
...You CAN go on multiplying error indefinitely because of the -- shall we say -- flexibility of interpretations, and the momentum gained by the particular interpretive scheme you've adopted that is shared by all your colleagues.
How can you tell when this is happening? How can you prevent it from happening?
Well, a creationist can tell it's happening with Old Earth and ToE interpretations, in fact it's so obvious it makes me groan all the time to read any of it. Fat chance any of the perps are going to take heed though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dogmafood, posted 01-05-2014 8:30 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dogmafood, posted 01-05-2014 6:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 118 of 168 (715439)
01-05-2014 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
01-05-2014 2:09 PM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
No thanks, Percy, I already knew I'd regret saying as much as I did.
But maybe I could at least take back whatever I said about nonhuman witnesses, because I really do mean you need intelligence from the past in order to have any hope of interpreting the past rightly. Written informatiuon at least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 2:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by JonF, posted 01-05-2014 4:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 168 (715447)
01-05-2014 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by marc9000
01-05-2014 3:23 PM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
This may be another case of creationists unable to communicate with each other, but I certainly wish you success with your thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2014 3:23 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 168 (715453)
01-05-2014 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by JonF
01-05-2014 8:59 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
I thought from the way you guys were talking that I must have used the term "witness" in some sense that included inanimate objects, which would have been a mistake although I could see I might have done it. But if this is what you meant it turns out I did not do that at all:
There are plenty of witnesses of all kinds to help the forensic investigator decipher the clues of a case. There are legal documents, case histories, and yes even scientific documents that may help in a particular case and are in the sense I'm using the word "witnesses.
OK, so now you are acknowledging the traces left by past events are "witnesses" and can be relied on. It's a start. Now try applying it.
What I listed are all HUMAN witnesses, documents written by human beings. I did not use the term in the sense you are saying I did, to refer to rocks as witnesses. I thought I must have made that error since you claim I did, but in fact I did not. Written documents that can be used in any way to establish the truth about a crime or ancient rocks, are the sort of witnesses I had in mind, all HUMAN witnesses.
Historical Geology studies things that exist in a time frame where there are no witnesses of any sort whatever.
By your definition, the rocks are witnesses.
This is completely false. I referred only to written documents as witnesses,. Rocks don't write documents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by JonF, posted 01-05-2014 8:59 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 4:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 139 by JonF, posted 01-06-2014 10:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 168 (715456)
01-05-2014 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
01-05-2014 4:49 PM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
Yes, RAZD, I was explaining what I meant by the "unwitnessed" past and what I meant refers to human witnesses, not to rocks though that kept getting falsely imputed to me. Rocks are the subject matter that needs the human witness, at least written information. Rocks don't write documents. The sense in which they are "witnesses" is not the sense I meant. I hope what I meant is now clear to you. When I say the "unwitnessed past" I mean the prehistoric past where you have no way of having your interpretation corrected. That is not the case with criminal forensics where you always have lots of possibilities through human witnesses both in person and in documents, to help you out. I do hope that what I mean by that constant concern about the danger of unstoppable false interpretation of the unwitnessed / prehistoric past, is clearer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 4:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 8:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 168 (715463)
01-05-2014 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
01-05-2014 5:59 PM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
The documents are not FROM the time in question, or close enough to be authoritative, such as the Book of Genesis of course.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2014 5:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2014 8:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 8:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 140 by Coragyps, posted 01-06-2014 11:13 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 168 (716133)
01-12-2014 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Coragyps
01-06-2014 11:13 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
Oh about two and a half millennia I believe, so of course I'll have to say time isn't the crucial thing after all, won't I? So instead I'll point out what DOES matter: 1) Moses was a prophet who heard directly from God, and 2) the history of Adam and Eve and everything before the Flood would have been passed down orally by the trustworthy clans of the God-fearing line that led up to Noah. Noah himself lived three hundred years after the Flood and would have passed on his knowledge to his descendants, and then his son Shem, who had lived a hundred years before the Flood, also lived a hundred years into Abraham's life span and would have continued the transmission. Abraham's descendants then of course passed it on down to Moses. Time isn't the crucial thing here, but the fact that it got transmitted and written down by God-fearing witnesses is the important thing for us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Coragyps, posted 01-06-2014 11:13 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024