Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8802 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 2:20 PM
292 online now:
Dr Adequate, halibut, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 286 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,619 Year: 27,225/21,208 Month: 1,138/1,714 Week: 346/525 Day: 21/67 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Author Topic:   The smoldering of EVC
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1759
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 106 of 160 (715401)
01-05-2014 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:01 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
It's NOT that you cannot know ANYTHING AT ALL about the situations of 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 2:09 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16152
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 107 of 160 (715402)
01-05-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:01 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
Hi Faith,

As I proposed to Marc, if there's really to be a discussion between the two sides of the nature of scientific evidence, then someone should propose a new thread. Here in this thread I'll just say that no one's misreading what you write, your claim that the "UNWITNESSED / PREHISTORIC PAST" somehow make it indeciperable is just a bald declaration, and that in your example the people you're calling witnesses are not witnesses but are just people who might be called to testify at a trial.

Continuing with the example of the forensics expert, if you decide to propose a new thread then you must focus on the difference between a forensics expert analyzing clues from last week and a geologist analyzing clues from past geologic eras.

Faith writes:

Sigh. Pass the Mylanta please.

Trust me when I say that there's a lot less stress when the evidence is on your side. You've set yourself a very heavy task when you have to make stuff up while hiding the fact it's made up, and then convince other people it's real in opposition to all evidence. As you've conceded, you can't even convince your own people. Seems like first convincing your own people would be a natural starting point.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 1:58 PM Percy has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 108 of 160 (715403)
01-05-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:01 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
I get the utterly irrelevant response from Jon that "witnesses are notoriously unreliable" as if that had anything whatever to do with the point,

Sorry, but it's very relevant. We can't trust what eyewitnesses claim. Today, yesterday, a century ago, 2000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, the time frame doesn't matter. Eyeitnesses are unreliable.

God has told us that we are to study His creation and His creation is reliable.

Eyewitnesses are not reliable. The traces left by past events are reliable.

Period.

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.

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.

quote:
Witness:

1. a person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place.

2. a person giving sworn testimony to a court of law or the police.synonyms: deponent, testifier More"she cross-examined the witness"

3. a person who is present at the signing of a document and signs it themselves to confirm this.

4. evidence; proof. "the memorial service was witness to the wide circle of his interest".


Apparently you are using the fourth definition. I've been using the first. But that's fine. All you have to do is acknowledge that the rocks are witnesses by your definition.

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.

Whoops, now you're equivocating. You just said that a witness need not be an observer. Now you are denying your earlier definition. Make up your mind.

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.

Merely revealing your abysmal ignorance.

Oh how I dread the nonsense THIS post is going to elicit. Aaagh.

You should stop posting nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 9:03 AM JonF has responded
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 1:55 PM JonF has responded
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 4:32 PM JonF has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16152
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 109 of 160 (715404)
01-05-2014 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by JonF
01-05-2014 8:59 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
JonF writes:

Whoops, now you're equivocating. You just said that a witness need not be an observer. Now you are denying your earlier definition. Make up your mind.

Yeah, I hit the same problem. I decided not to comment and just focused on the part where she considered witnesses to be people.

--Percy


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by JonF, posted 01-05-2014 10:12 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 110 of 160 (715411)
01-05-2014 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
01-05-2014 9:03 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
Yeah, and "flexibility of interpretations" from someone who hasn't a clue about how inescapable the conclusions of mainstream science are when you incorporate all the relevant data and whose interpretations vary to suit the current situation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 9:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 111 of 160 (715413)
01-05-2014 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:01 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
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.

As JonF and Percy have discussed rocks are witnesses (definition 4) to historical geology and thus to the prehistoric past (a much more appropriate term, one actually used by scientists).

But they are not alone. Other witnesses are the observations made about how things work in general -- the law of superposition is a witness to the relative age of layers, the physics of hydrology is a witness to the behavior of water which is a witness to how erosion occurs in different places in different ways. There are more: concepts that have been invalidated in one application are witness to high confidence in those concepts being wrong in general. Science discards concepts that don't work as witnesses for explaining all the evidence, concepts like magical sorting of particles by water that is somehow different from water we have today (where large dense particles settle first and grade up to the finest particles settling last): the behavior of water today is witness to the behavior of water in the past.

So it doesn't matter what you call it or how you describe it, science works by figuring out how things work, and using that knowledge to best understand what has happened in the past. It is not an ad hoc make it up as you go along process.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:01 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 112 of 160 (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 responded

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

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 113 of 160 (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 responded

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

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 114 of 160 (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
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 115 of 160 (715435)
01-05-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ProtoTypical
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 ProtoTypical, posted 01-05-2014 8:30 AM ProtoTypical has responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16152
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 116 of 160 (715436)
01-05-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
01-05-2014 1:58 PM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
Hi Faith,

This is a Coffee House thread, and as Jon and I tried to make clear to you, it's not easy to tell when you're talking about witnesses who are people versus witnesses that are evidence. Instead of us all trying to work that out here, why don't you clarify what you mean as part of a topic proposal over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 1:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 2:18 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13866
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 117 of 160 (715437)
01-05-2014 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
01-05-2014 1:55 PM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
Faith writes:

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.


You're missing a word there: it has to be interpreted objectively by human beings. The Christian points out the Muslim's biases, the Muslim points out the atheist's biases and so on. When the Christian biases are removed, creationism evaporates.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 1:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 118 of 160 (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 acknowledged this reply

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

    
marc9000
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 119 of 160 (715444)
01-05-2014 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:01 AM


Re: The Unwitnessed / Prehistoric Past
The phrase "unwitnessed past" seems to have thrown a bunch of you into some kind of mental swamp.

I think the best way to clarify why that is happening is because science is actually divided in two, there's actual science, and there's metaphysical science. All those of the scientific community try to blend them, and make them indistinguishable, and they're having a difficult time doing it. I'll go and propose that new thread in the next few hours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 3:35 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 123 by nwr, posted 01-05-2014 4:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 5:01 PM marc9000 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 120 of 160 (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 yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017