Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2019 4:52 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,736 Year: 9,772/19,786 Month: 2,194/2,119 Week: 230/724 Day: 69/93 Hour: 7/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Searching for Ancient Truth
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 76 of 84 (294697)
03-12-2006 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
03-12-2006 8:57 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
You didn't answer the question about the witness and the unicorn.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 8:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 77 of 84 (294698)
03-12-2006 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
03-12-2006 8:48 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
Faith writes:

Witnesses are GREAT evidence.


HOW RELIABLE IS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?: A Decision By New York State's Highest Court Reveals Unsettling Truths About Juries
Eyewitness Reliability in Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction and Litigation
Gary Wells home page on eyewitness reliability
FAQ on eyewitness identification
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 8:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 9:53 PM nwr has responded

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 78 of 84 (294715)
03-12-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
03-12-2006 8:57 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
Faith writes:

But the point is that we have independent ways of checking the things on the list. You can't compare such things to the situation with the ancient past where there are no such independent means of checking any given interpretation.

Ok...you provide me with one independent way that you can check the validity of each of the first 6 items and I will provide a refutation of each instance of "independent" evidence.

At EvC, one is not obligated to ignore witness evidence. Witness evidence just doesn't get any more weight than individual pieces of forensic evidence. It certainly doesn't outweigh ALL the forensic evidence. If you think it does then you must concur that a unicorn did kill Kennedy if a witness came forth and said so.

To get this across better it would probably be best to stick to discussing the actual problems we deal with about the explanations for the ancient past.
As you wish. You can start with the top three common problems that you feel prevent the ranking of the likelyhood of individual explanations for ancient events.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 8:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31806
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 79 of 84 (294720)
03-12-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by nwr
03-12-2006 9:15 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
I'm not talking about the quality of witness evidence, only the fact that if you have it when you have no other evidence it is great evidence to have.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 9:15 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 9:55 PM Faith has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 80 of 84 (294722)
03-12-2006 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
03-12-2006 9:53 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
In the case of geology and evolution, we do have other evidence, and it is better evidence than you ever can get with eye witnesses.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 9:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 11:15 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31806
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 81 of 84 (294751)
03-12-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nwr
03-12-2006 9:55 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
In the case of geology and evolution, we do have other evidence, and it is better evidence than you ever can get with eye witnesses.

Well I dispute this. It all amounts in the end to unprovable interpretation and conjecture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 9:55 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by LinearAq, posted 03-13-2006 7:03 AM Faith has responded
 Message 83 by LinearAq, posted 03-15-2006 6:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 82 of 84 (294810)
03-13-2006 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
03-12-2006 11:15 PM


Re: Ranking of explanations
Faith in post 79 writes:

I'm not talking about the quality of witness evidence, only the fact that if you have it when you have no other evidence it is great evidence to have.

Sometimes when trying to respond quickly things get confused. You contradicted yourself in this sentence. You said you weren't talking about the quality, then proceeded to give a quality rating, "great",to witness evidence. Interestingly, you also said it is great when no other evidence is provided.
Does this mean it is not-so-great when other evidence is available?
How far down the scale does witness evidence fall?
Does it become as good as other evidence or does the relative rank of witness evidence depend on the perceived validity level of the other evidence?
By what criteria do you make a value judgement of the validity of witness and "other" evidence?

nwr in Post 80 writes:

In the case of geology and evolution, we do have other evidence, and it is better evidence than you ever can get with eye witnesses.

Faith, in reply, writes:

Well I dispute this. It all amounts in the end to unprovable interpretation and conjecture.


Your response implies that you are familiar enough with all the evidence and knowledgeable enough in the fields of geology and evolution to make an educated judgement call on this. You have yet to show us why you think that the interpretation is unprovable so this amounts to a restatement of your own unsupported assertion, yet again.
Are you disputing the existence of the evidence?

I would like to get off this side issue and tackle the idea of testable vs untestable as it applies to explanations of the ancient past. Specifically your reply to post 78, please state,

...the top three common problems that you feel prevent the ranking of the likelyhood of individual explanations for ancient events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 11:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 6:46 AM LinearAq has not yet responded

    
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 83 of 84 (295438)
03-15-2006 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
03-12-2006 11:15 PM


Bump for Faith
Hi Faith,

I noticed that you seem to have more pies than fingers. However, this is a reminder that this thread awaits your return. No real hurry but I was hoping to get a response before the thread drops off the top 100 chart.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 11:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31806
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 84 of 84 (295439)
03-15-2006 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by LinearAq
03-13-2006 7:03 AM


Re: Ranking of explanations
I don't think what I was saying was so complicated. Simply saying that if you don't have other evidence then witness evidence is a great thing to have. Not even getting into the quality of the witness evidence itself.

Although I think witness evidence is good evidence in the case of the Bible events, but that isn't what I was saying here.

As for disputing the evidence for geology, the part about witness evidence was not really relevant. I merely meant to say I dispute the evidence given on behalf of geologic timetable (not all geology) and the ToE (not all biology) etc. because it isn't really evidence, it's interpretation. {And I just got into a series of posts explaining what I mean by that, on the thread about the Grand Canyon rocks, starting with
#26, Fact versus Interpretation

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 07:41 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by LinearAq, posted 03-13-2006 7:03 AM LinearAq has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019