|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/24/2008 7:57:00 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
Well, it's all about the testimony... Albeit either verbal testimony as seen in written documentation, or a tangeable testimony as with artifacts. If all we have is "evidence" of anything, it is irrelevant unless there is a reliable testimony to go along with it that explains its relevance. We have unreliable testimony all the time that states the "evidence" they see is clues to evolution. The same evidence being testified by a reliable source would tell of its proof of creation.
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/24/2008 7:46:41 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Now, why would a man (whom we knew existed) willingly base his life on a "set of fairy tales" to a point that he would willingly be tortured to death for them? I don't know of any man who would knowingly die for a lie. Now, Jesus is either a madman and no good teacher as many attribute to him, for no good teacher would lie about himself to the point of asserting that he was God, OR, Jesus was telling the truth about Himself - if that was so, then if HE believed in the Old Testament as being truthful, then WE have every reason to. Whether archeologists have unearthed anything pertaining to it yet or not.
Now correct me if I am wrong.
I considered your argument very carefully and I came up with an idea that your determination of reality is not based on empirical evidences but motives. Am I correct? In another words if a person straps on a bomb and blows himself up in a crowded mall martyring himself for his beliefs than want he believes must be the truth?
Right?
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/24/2008 8:17:25 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Well, it's all about the testimony... Albeit either verbal testimony as seen in written documentation, or a tangeable testimony as with artifacts. If all we have is "evidence" of anything, it is irrelevant unless there is a reliable testimony to go along with it that explains its relevance. We have unreliable testimony all the time that states the "evidence" they see is clues to evolution. The same evidence being testified by a reliable source would tell of its proof of creation.
How do you determine if a testimony is reliable or not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 8:09:20 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 355
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(BVZ) Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural.
There must be evidence to support the existence of the thing as well, other wise it would not be natural.
(theo) By that standard, God is natural, not supernatural.
Testimony is the best evidence. Even better than experience, because experience is only evidence for the one experiencing. He/she must of necessity use testimony to explain the experience in order to share it with anyone else.
In courts of law, testimony is used to explain points of evidence of all other types. Evidence may be shown to juries, but it is still testimony that determines the significance of the evidence being shown.
(BVZ) Testimony is not scientific evidence. We are discussing science here. If we were discussing law, I would understand your confusion, but we are not.
(theo) What we are discussing here is testimony.
This is not a law forum. In law, testimony is regarded as evidence. In science, it is not. Is this so hard for you to understand? When I said that anything with evidence supporting it is natural, what I was saying is that anything with scientific evidence (observable evidence) is natural.
Do you understand now? Or to be more specific, do you understand what kind of evidence is needed for something to be natural?
Heres another clue: If faith is needed to make evidence credible, then it is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence should be credible, even if it flies in the face of our intuitions. Does that make sense to you?
quote:
quote:
(PromiseLander)(Post #1) If the conclusions derived from an observable science are in contrast to doctrines of the Bible, which do you trust, and why?
(theo) "Which do you trust" is asking for testimony, not scientific evidence.
"And why" is asking for testimony, not scientific evidence.
quote:
(theo) One might show raw evidence to any number of judges, but it still requires testimony to help them understand what it is evidence of.
(BVZ) It is the existence of the raw evidence that make what it is evidence of natural. How easy or hard it is to understand this evidence is irrelevant. And again, we are not discussing law here.
(theo) And there is a superfluity of testimony to the existence of God; the creation account of Genesis; the world wide flood; the release of the captives under Cyrus, king of Persia; the virgin birth of Jesus; the death by crucifixion; the resurrection and ascension; and the early influence upon the lives of the first Christians.
(BVZ) Testimony is not scientific evidence.
(theo) Doubt came centuries too late to be serious contenders for consideration.
(BVZ) Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural.
(BVZ) There must be evidence to support the existence of the thing as well, other wise it would not be natural.
(theo) By this standard, nothing is supernatural, for there is always testimony, which is always evidence. Do you suppose there are some other qualifying parameters involved?
(BVZ) Testimony is not scientific evidence. And again, we are not discussing law here. We are discussing science.
(theo) No! We are discussing "EVIDENCE," or did you not notice? Do you think "evidence" is really divided into such nice classifications as "Legal" and "Scientific?" Did you not know the same rules apply to ALL evidence?
I did not know this, becuase it is not true.
'Scientific evidence' is not synonymous with the term 'evidence' as it is used in law.
quote:
And did you not know that much of what is presented as evidence in a legal setting, is scientific in nature? And did you not know that when the evidence is presented to a jury, whether in court or in a classroom, or in a Laboratory, the distinction is not made?
Actually I did know this. But how does it in any way contradict what I said?
If you take scientific evidence as a collection, and evidence permissable in court as another collection, they will overlap. In fact, I think all scientific evidence is propably permissable in court, because of the high standards evidence needs to comply to before it can be considered to be scientific evidence.
Anyway, you are not addressing anything I actually said. This is what I said: If you have evidence for something, that thing is natural. Since this is a disussion in a scientific context, I assumed that the word 'evidence' would be interpreted as 'scientific evidence'. So, with that in mind, I will rephrase: Anything with scientific evidence supporting it is natural.
Do you understand why testimony does not neccesarily imply that something is natural? The reason for this is that is is not always possible to verify something someone said.
quote:
There is NO way you can share ANYTHING of the nature of a scientific experiment without testimony. You may even offer film evidence, but you will still have to explain the film and its significance, by testimony.
Yes? So?
The film evidence would be scientific evidence. Anything the film evidence supports will be natural. That is all I am saying.
quote:
Even your denial is testimony.
Now, let's hear your testimony as to why that is not so.
I agree that my denial is testimony. But what does that have to do with what we are discussing?
In case you are still having trouble following what I am saying (I would not be surprised) I will explain it to you again:
For something to be considered natural, there must be evidence derived from nature (scientific evidence) that can be verified objectively that supports that thing.
Thats it. It's really that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 8:30:08 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Now, why would a man (whom we knew existed) willingly base his life on a "set of fairy tales" to a point that he would willingly be tortured to death for them? I don't know of any man who would knowingly die for a lie. Now, Jesus is either a madman and no good teacher as many attribute to him, for no good teacher would lie about himself to the point of asserting that he was God, OR, Jesus was telling the truth about Himself - if that was so, then if HE believed in the Old Testament as being truthful, then WE have every reason to. Whether archeologists have unearthed anything pertaining to it yet or not.
Now correct me if I am wrong.
I considered your argument very carefully and I came up with an idea that your determination of reality is not based on empirical evidences but motives. Am I correct? In another words if a person straps on a bomb and blows himself up in a crowded mall martyring himself for his beliefs than want he believes must be the truth?
Right?
FreddieD
No, the argument that I put on the table was not necessarily an argument for the truth of what a man dies for - it was a statement that the man who dies has conviction that what he dies for is true, as no man would willingly be tortured to death for a lie.
Now, empiracle evidences are all around us as to the truth of the Bible, but many are blinded because of their sin. (read Romans 1: 18-32) Look at this argument - nothing physical can come to be by it's own power, it must have had a cause. Since every physical thing requires a cause in order to exist, then something non-physical, or supernatural that transends time must have been the initial cause of everything physical. Further, it is impossible for this physical universe to have had an infinate number of causes, therefore no beginning. This can be argued logically, but for brevity I'll just state the fact that it is impossible.
Jesus rose from the dead. The writers of the gospels stated that he appeared risen to many eyewitnesses with many infallible proofs. The writers further urged readers to consult the many eye witnesses for confirmation. The following of this Jesus and the belief that he rose from the dead drove many of his followers to become martyrs. They professed the truth of his resurrection even while facing beheading, crucifixion, burning to death, frying to death, and many other forms of torturous death. If you don't believe this, then the most likely reason is time... Those men are far removed from this day and it is impossible to consult them with your questions - one of the biggest proofs of Jesus is a changed life...
You want empiracle proof that God exists? You'll never see it as long as you have your eyes closed with your fingers in your ears while chanting "la, la, la, I can't hear you!" (Once again, read Romans 1: 18-32)
Seek the Lord while He may be found...
Anyone who comes to Him, He will in no ways cast out...
Deny yourself, daily take up your cross, and follow Him.
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 8:35:26 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
For something to be considered natural, there must be evidence derived from nature (scientific evidence) that can be verified objectively that supports that thing.
Thats it. It's really that simple.
The existence of anything natural is evidence of supernatural origins. Nothing physical, nothing natural can come to being on its own, it requires an outside source. If you doubt this, then I challenge you to attempt to make anything you wish out of absolutely nothing. Physical origins can only be explained by the existence of something supernatural.
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 10:37:22 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(BVZ) Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural.
There must be evidence to support the existence of the thing as well, other wise it would not be natural.
(theo) By that standard, God is natural, not supernatural.
Testimony is the best evidence. Even better than experience, because experience is only evidence for the one experiencing. He/she must of necessity use testimony to explain the experience in order to share it with anyone else.
(BVZ) Testimony is not scientific evidence. We are discussing science here. If we were discussing law, I would understand your confusion, but we are not.
(theo) What we are discussing here is testimony.
(BVZ) This is not a law forum. In law, testimony is regarded as evidence. In science, it is not. Is this so hard for you to understand?
I UNDERSTRAND PERFECTLY YOUR APPLICATION OF THE TERMS. However, I disagree with your conclusion.
You can make any kind of preparation for a scientific experiment. You can have any material, and any scientific application of interaction applied to that material. You still have to give TESTIMONY as to the conclusions reached based upon the results of your experiment.
Either that, or every person you want to express your conclusion to will have to redo the same experiment and come up with the same result, and reach the same conclusion as to the meaning of the result. And then you will have to rely on TESTIMONY to come to agreement that you agree.
There is NO WAY you are going to eliminate testimony as evidence in scientific experiments.
If you do the entire experiment yourself, you still depend upon the testimony of others as to the values of the materials you use, the conditions of the experiment, or some facet or other of the experiment itself., And the more complicated the experiment, the more testimony of other will contribute to your results and your conclusions.
Now, give us your testimony as to why this is not so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 12:40:37 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Either that, or every person you want to express your conclusion to will have to redo the same experiment and come up with the same result, and reach the same conclusion as to the meaning of the result.
I expect the point is that in science one can do exactly that, whereas testimony is unique to each individual. If you have conflicting testimony without the backing of evidence, there is no way to tell whose testimony is correct. But if the testimony is about a scientific observation, everyone can (in principle) do the observing for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 12:40:50 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I UNDERSTRAND PERFECTLY YOUR APPLICATION OF THE TERMS. However, I disagree with your conclusion.
You can make any kind of preparation for a scientific experiment. You can have any material, and any scientific application of interaction applied to that material. You still have to give TESTIMONY as to the conclusions reached based upon the results of your experiment.
The difference is that a scientist describes the specific experimental protocols that they used to arrive at the results. Therefore, one can repeat the experiments and determine if it is a reliable testimony.
Take ERV's as an example. In scientific papers scientists testify that ERV's are found in the same genomic position in apes and humans. Is this true simply because a scientist says so? No. You can use the same PCR primers and DNA samples and test to see if it is true independent of the scientist's testimony.
As for a court of law, DNA evidence is a good cross-over example. Is there a DNA match simply because the prosecution's expert witness says there is a match? No. The defense also has to be supplied a sample that they can independently tested for a DNA match.
In science nature is the testimony, not the scientist. With creationism we see the exact opposite occuring. Evidence is thrown out because it conflicts with the testimony. Creationist organizations openly admit that they will not accept any evidence that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. If testimony can not stand up to the evidence then what good is that testimony?
quote:
Either that, or every person you want to express your conclusion to will have to redo the same experiment and come up with the same result, and reach the same conclusion as to the meaning of the result. And then you will have to rely on TESTIMONY to come to agreement that you agree.
You said it yourself. If they repeat the experiment and come to the same results then there is no reliance on testimony. One can certainly argue as to the conclusions drawn from the experiment, but the results (if verified) are not up for argument. They are the facts that we all base our arguments on.
Also, conclusions are not testimony. Conclusions are arguments.
quote:
There is NO WAY you are going to eliminate testimony as evidence in scientific experiments.
You said it yourself. One can repeat the experiment and verify the results. No testimony needed.
quote:
If you do the entire experiment yourself, you still depend upon the testimony of others as to the values of the materials you use, the conditions of the experiment, or some facet or other of the experiment itself., And the more complicated the experiment, the more testimony of other will contribute to your results and your conclusions.
Why do you have to rely on that testimony? Either those experimental conditions produce those results or they don't. Do you really think that scientists just make up the experimental conditions and hope that everyone else gets the same results? If they did this and were found out their carreers would be in serious jeapordy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 2:37:00 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(theo)
You still have to give TESTIMONY....
quote:
(method) The difference is that a scientist describes...
(theo) A scientist does WHAT?
quote:
(method) a scientist describes...
(theo) and HOW des he do THAT?
quote:
(method) ...a reliable testimony.
(theo) Suppose the experiment has to do with ERV's found in the same genomic position in Apes and Humans? How is the information disseminated?
quote:
(method) Take ERV's as an example. In scientific papers scientists testify...
(theo) SAY AGAIN???
quote:
(method) Take ERV's as an example. In scientific papers scientists testify...
quote:
(method) As for a court of law, DNA evidence is a good cross-over example. Is there a DNA match simply because the prosecution's expert witness says there is a match? No. The defense also has to be supplied a sample that they can independently tested for a DNA match.
(theo) That is not the issue. The prosecuter could be a WITNESS to the crime. He would still depend upon TESTIMONY to get that point accross to the jury.
The jury still has to have experts testimony as to what the evidence is about.
quote:
(method) In science nature is the testimony, not the scientist.
(theo) Nature is not testimony and does not tesify. MEN examine, analyze, and give testimony as to what is meant by the natural evidence.
quote:
(method) With creationism we see the exact opposite occuring. Evidence is thrown out because it conflicts with the testimony. Creationist organizations openly admit that they will not accept any evidence that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. If testimony can not stand up to the evidence then what good is that testimony?
(theo) That is one analysis of how it works. Another is that the scientist does not adequately explain the significance of his evidence. Another is that the scientist does not adequately understand the significance of the creationists argument.
I have not "thrown out" any evidence to the contrary. I have not SEEN any evidence to the contrary. I have seen nothing purporting to prove there is no God, and furthermore, I was not aware scientists were even attempting to so prove.
I am a creationist. But what does that mean? It means I believe in a supernatural creator. What do I use for evidence? The Genesis account coupled with Proverbs the eighth chapter, and others; in conjunction with other accounts that demonstrate the probability that God's word can be believed, and is dependable.
quote:
(method) Evidence is thrown out because it conflicts with the testimony. Creationist organizations openly admit that they will not accept any evidence that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. If testimony can not stand up to the evidence then what good is that testimony?
Whether juries accept testimony or reject it, has nothing to do with the facts represented by the testimony. Do you really suppose all murderers get justice from a jury? Do you really suppose all those people aquitted by jury trial, are truly innocent? What has any of that got to do with the facts of testimony?
The reason some prosecutors are so popular, is because they have learned or developed a method by which to convince with their testimony, so that a jury will give them the verdict they want.
That is the same exact reason defense attornies are so popular and so highly paid; they can give or wring out of witnesses, convincing testimony. Or can punch holes in the testimony of witnesses who never should have been put on the stand to begin with. Not because their testimony is false, but because they are not believable.
quote:
(theo) Either that, or every person you want to express your conclusion to will have to redo the same experiment and come up with the same result, and reach the same conclusion as to the meaning of the result. And then you will have to rely on TESTIMONY to come to agreement that you agree.
(method) You said it yourself. If they repeat the experiment and come to the same results then there is no reliance on testimony. One can certainly argue as to the conclusions drawn from the experiment, but the results (if verified) are not up for argument. They are the facts that we all base our arguments on.
That is not what I "said it myself." I said you WILL have to rely on testimony.
If they saw the original experiment, and understood the principles and processes, they can reproduce the experiment because they were participants, not juries weighing testimony.
If they have to rely on the testimony of the scientist who set up the experiment, then they very much do have to rely on the testimony of that scientist even to set up the experiment correctly the second time.
And they certainly will have to rely on the testimony of the processors of the first experiment to even know thay have the same results, unless they were participants themselves.
quote:
(method) Also, conclusions are not testimony. Conclusions are arguments.
(theo) You can reach any conclusion you want to but to share it with anyone else you must testify. You must testify as to proccess, result, conclusion. There is no other way to share the information.
quote:
(theo) There is NO WAY you are going to eliminate testimony as evidence in scientific experiments.
(method) You said it yourself. One can repeat the experiment and verify the results. No testimony needed.
(theo) It requires testimony to know how to set up the experiment. It reauires testimony to know how to proccess the experiment. It requires testimony to know if the results are similar, identical, close, etc. And it requires testimony to know if the conclusions reached are the same or different.
quote:
(theo) If you do the entire experiment yourself, you still depend upon the testimony of others as to the values of the materials you use, the conditions of the experiment, or some facet or other of the experiment itself., And the more complicated the experiment, the more testimony of other will contribute to your results and your conclusions.
(method) Why do you have to rely on that testimony? Either those experimental conditions produce those results or they don't. Do you really think that scientists just make up the experimental conditions and hope that everyone else gets the same results? If they did this and were found out their carreers would be in serious jeapordy.
(theo) That is not the issue. The point at issue is that the replicators of experiments will rely on testimony to replicate any experiment, and will have to know every aspect including the material, the condition of the material, timeing, atmospheric conditions, and etc. ad nauseum; all through testimony; whether verbal, literary, audio device, whatever. It is by correct and accurate testimony one can replicate an experiment anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 4:52:15 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) That is not the issue. The prosecuter could be a WITNESS to the crime. He would still depend upon TESTIMONY to get that point accross to the jury.
The jury still has to have experts testimony as to what the evidence is about.
No they don't. Many convicts have been vindicated on DNA evidence alone without a jury.
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 5:29:20 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
No, the argument that I put on the table was not necessarily an argument for the truth of what a man dies for
I didn't say that. I said if a person lay downs his life for something that he believes, does that act make what he believes true?
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Now, empiracle evidences are all around us as to the truth of the Bible, but many are blinded because of their sin.
I do not recognize sin.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
(read Romans 1: 18-32)
I prefer to leave the Bible out of it since it is based of faith and under examination.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Look at this argument - nothing physical can come to be by it's own power, it must have had a cause. Since every physical thing requires a cause in order to exist, then something non-physical, or supernatural that transcends time must have been the initial cause of everything physical.
Prove the supernatural transcends time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Further, it is impossible for this physical universe to have had an infinite number of causes, therefore no beginning.
Nobody says that it had an infinite causes but an infinite number of universes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Jesus rose from the dead. The writers of the gospels stated that he appeared risen to many eyewitnesses with many infallible proofs.
Those are urban legends and aren't reliable. Many witness the appearance of the Virgin Mary. Do you believe their testimony?
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
one of the biggest proofs of Jesus is a changed life...
Not proof enough. Many different endeavours can inspire a person, Christianity is just one of them.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
You want empiracle proof that God exists? You'll never see it as long as you have your eyes closed with your fingers in your ears while chanting "la, la, la, I can't hear you!" (Once again, read Romans 1: 18-32)
That is a circular argument.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Seek the Lord while He may be found...
Anyone who comes to Him, He will in no ways cast out...
Deny yourself, daily take up your cross, and follow Him.
Why?
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 6:55:30 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) A scientist does WHAT?
Describes mechanisms that you can test yourself independent of the scientist's testimony.
quote:
(theo) and HOW des he do THAT?
Read a peer reviewed scientific paper for yourself.
quote:
(theo) Suppose the experiment has to do with ERV's found in the same genomic position in Apes and Humans? How is the information disseminated?
It is communicated in a peer reviewed journal where both the experimental conditions and the results are given. The authors then argue for a specific conclusion based on those verifiable results.
quote:
(theo) SAY AGAIN???
Perhaps you could quote the rest of the paragraph?
"Is this true simply because a scientist says so? No. You can use the same PCR primers and DNA samples and test to see if it is true independent of the scientist's testimony."
Why did you choose to ignore this part?
quote:
quote:
(method) As for a court of law, DNA evidence is a good cross-over example. Is there a DNA match simply because the prosecution's expert witness says there is a match? No. The defense also has to be supplied a sample that they can independently tested for a DNA match.
(theo) That is not the issue. The prosecuter could be a WITNESS to the crime. He would still depend upon TESTIMONY to get that point accross to the jury.
Which is much more unreliable than DNA evidence because DNA evidence can be indepedently tested of any testimony.
For example, let's say a woman witnesses a murder and she then picks the culprit out of a line up. Upon examination of the murder scene the detectives discover bloody fingerprints, hair, and shoe prints that do not belong to the victim. Upon examination of the evidence they find that they are not a match to the person picked out of the line up. Should this person be found guilty or not guilty? I would say "no guilty" due to the fact that empirical evidence trumps eye witness testimony.
quote:
The jury still has to have experts testimony as to what the evidence is about.
What is that testimony based on? Evidence that is independent of the testimony and verifiable by a third party.
quote:
(theo) Nature is not testimony and does not tesify.
Yes, it does. That's the whole point of doing science.
quote:
(theo) That is one analysis of how it works. Another is that the scientist does not adequately explain the significance of his evidence. Another is that the scientist does not adequately understand the significance of the creationists argument.
But the facts are the facts. What you are saying is that one can ignore the facts because they are based on testimony.
quote:
I have not "thrown out" any evidence to the contrary. I have not SEEN any evidence to the contrary. I have seen nothing purporting to prove there is no God, and furthermore, I was not aware scientists were even attempting to so prove.
But you can do experiments which demonstrate the constancy of the speed of light and also do experiments which measure the distance to far away galaxies. The facts are that the speed of light is constant and that galaxies are millions and billions of light years away.
quote:
I am a creationist. But what does that mean? It means I believe in a supernatural creator. What do I use for evidence? The Genesis account coupled with Proverbs the eighth chapter, and others; in conjunction with other accounts that demonstrate the probability that God's word can be believed, and is dependable.
That is testimony, not evidence.
quote:
Whether juries accept testimony or reject it, has nothing to do with the facts represented by the testimony. Do you really suppose all murderers get justice from a jury? Do you really suppose all those people aquitted by jury trial, are truly innocent? What has any of that got to do with the facts of testimony?
You are confusing and ought with an is. Should juries reject evidence based solely on the fact that it exonerates the defendant? No, and yet this is exactly how creationists approach the evidence. They openly admit to rejecting evidence which contradicts Genesis.
quote:
quote:
(method) You said it yourself. If they repeat the experiment and come to the same results then there is no reliance on testimony. One can certainly argue as to the conclusions drawn from the experiment, but the results (if verified) are not up for argument. They are the facts that we all base our arguments on.
That is not what I "said it myself." I said you WILL have to rely on testimony.
Why would you need to rely on testimony if you can produce the results yourself?
quote:
If they saw the original experiment, and understood the principles and processes, they can reproduce the experiment because they were participants, not juries weighing testimony.
Wrong. That is not how science works. I have repeated experiments of other scientists using just the protocols listed in their papers. That's it. Going back to ERV's, you can use the same techniques that they did and come to the same results if their results are reliable.
quote:
If they have to rely on the testimony of the scientist who set up the experiment, then they very much do have to rely on the testimony of that scientist even to set up the experiment correctly the second time.
No, you don't. Either you get the same results or you don't.
quote:
And they certainly will have to rely on the testimony of the processors of the first experiment to even know thay have the same results, unless they were participants themselves.
They list their results, so you would know.
quote:
(theo) You can reach any conclusion you want to but to share it with anyone else you must testify. You must testify as to proccess, result, conclusion. There is no other way to share the information.
I must tell people how I did an experiment, certainly. However, if someone does that experiment and comes to the same results I did then my testimony is irrelevant.
quote:
(theo) It requires testimony to know how to set up the experiment. It reauires testimony to know how to proccess the experiment. It requires testimony to know if the results are similar, identical, close, etc. And it requires testimony to know if the conclusions reached are the same or different.
Each experiment stands on it's own. The results of one experiment do not affect the other experiment. They are independent of any testimony.
quote:
(theo) That is not the issue. The point at issue is that the replicators of experiments will rely on testimony to replicate any experiment, and will have to know every aspect including the material, the condition of the material, timeing, atmospheric conditions, and etc. ad nauseum; all through testimony; whether verbal, literary, audio device, whatever. It is by correct and accurate testimony one can replicate an experiment anyway.
But once you do the experiment you don't need any testimony. You have done the experiment and have the results. If the experimental results differ then you can challenge the testimony of the other scientist. That is the whole point. Science is a method that allows one to challenge the findings of others. This is not so for religion. Someone claims divine inspiration and you either accept it on faith or not. Not so in science.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 8:00:52 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) That is not the issue. The prosecuter could be a WITNESS to the crime. He would still depend upon TESTIMONY to get that point accross to the jury.
The jury still has to have experts testimony as to what the evidence is about.
No they don't. Many convicts have been vindicated on DNA evidence alone without a jury.
FreddieD
So they just laid a lump of DNA on the judges podium? Or did someone "testify" as to its significance?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 8:45:29 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
So they just laid a lump of DNA on the judges podium?
DNA test results, yes.
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/25/2008 9:30:07 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
So they just laid a lump of DNA on the judges podium? Or did someone "testify" as to its significance?
It's significance is up to the jury. The match between the DNA samples and the defendant is not up for debate. It is a matter of fact that no testimony can change.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/26/2008 8:48:37 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
So they just laid a lump of DNA on the judges podium? Or did someone "testify" as to its significance?
It's significance is up to the jury. The match between the DNA samples and the defendant is not up for debate. It is a matter of fact that no testimony can change.
(theo) Sure it can. If the defense attorney, due to the factual content of the evidence, gets the prosecutor to testify "The DNA is not the DNA of either the victim or the defendant" how can it NOT effect a change in the trial? And it is TESTIMONY that overrides the DNA.
You CANNOT simply supply evidence without testimony to make known why it is relevant and to give meaning to it. The same principle is involved whether in a legal court of trial by jury, or in a scientific laboratory of experiment. TESTIMONY rules.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/26/2008 12:21:43 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
So they just laid a lump of DNA on the judges podium? Or did someone "testify" as to its significance?
It's significance is up to the jury. The match between the DNA samples and the defendant is not up for debate. It is a matter of fact that no testimony can change.
(theo) Sure it can. If the defense attorney, due to the factual content of the evidence, gets the prosecutor to testify "The DNA is not the DNA of either the victim or the defendant" how can it NOT effect a change in the trial? And it is TESTIMONY that overrides the DNA.
You CANNOT simply supply evidence without testimony to make known why it is relevant and to give meaning to it. The same principle is involved whether in a legal court of trial by jury, or in a scientific laboratory of experiment. TESTIMONY rules.
That is shifting the goal posts, theo. The DNA would not have been entered into evidence if it did not match samples of DNA from the defendant. That is a point which the defence attorney cannot dispute, since the defence had access as well to both the DNA of the defendant and of the samples gathered at the crime scene to confirm the match.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/26/2008 4:29:02 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The match between the DNA samples and the defendant is not up for debate. It is a matter of fact that no testimony can change.
(theo) Sure it can. If the defense attorney, due to the factual content of the evidence, gets the prosecutor to testify "The DNA is not the DNA of either the victim or the defendant" how can it NOT effect a change in the trial? And it is TESTIMONY that overrides the DNA.
You CANNOT simply supply evidence without testimony to make known why it is relevant and to give meaning to it. The same principle is involved whether in a legal court of trial by jury, or in a scientific laboratory of experiment. TESTIMONY rules.
(gluadys) That is shifting the goal posts, theo. The DNA would not have been entered into evidence if it did not match samples of DNA from the defendant. That is a point which the defence attorney cannot dispute, since the defence had access as well to both the DNA of the defendant and of the samples gathered at the crime scene to confirm the match.
And THAT is living in a dream world. MOST of the DNA evidence offered in courts still today, is offered by defense attorneys to free men who have been in prison for YEARS for crimes they did not commit. When they free all the innocent prisoners, then the bulk of the DNA may well become proof of guilt, but in the interum, it is proof of innocence.
And it is with mounds of TESTIMONY that the evidence is presented.
TESTIMONY STILL RULES.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/26/2008 6:11:41 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
The match between the DNA samples and the defendant is not up for debate. It is a matter of fact that no testimony can change.
(theo) Sure it can. If the defense attorney, due to the factual content of the evidence, gets the prosecutor to testify "The DNA is not the DNA of either the victim or the defendant" how can it NOT effect a change in the trial? And it is TESTIMONY that overrides the DNA.
You CANNOT simply supply evidence without testimony to make known why it is relevant and to give meaning to it. The same principle is involved whether in a legal court of trial by jury, or in a scientific laboratory of experiment. TESTIMONY rules.
(gluadys) That is shifting the goal posts, theo. The DNA would not have been entered into evidence if it did not match samples of DNA from the defendant. That is a point which the defence attorney cannot dispute, since the defence had access as well to both the DNA of the defendant and of the samples gathered at the crime scene to confirm the match.
And THAT is living in a dream world. MOST of the DNA evidence offered in courts still today, is offered by defense attorneys to free men who have been in prison for YEARS for crimes they did not commit. When they free all the innocent prisoners, then the bulk of the DNA may well become proof of guilt, but in the interum, it is proof of innocence.
And it is with mounds of TESTIMONY that the evidence is presented.
TESTIMONY STILL RULES.
So? Whether presented by the prosecution or the defence it is still evidence. And whether presented by the prosecution or the defence, the other side has to have access to the evidence for independent testing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/26/2008 6:28:47 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
The match between the DNA samples and the defendant is not up for debate. It is a matter of fact that no testimony can change.
(theo) Sure it can. If the defense attorney, due to the factual content of the evidence, gets the prosecutor to testify "The DNA is not the DNA of either the victim or the defendant" how can it NOT effect a change in the trial? And it is TESTIMONY that overrides the DNA.
You CANNOT simply supply evidence without testimony to make known why it is relevant and to give meaning to it. The same principle is involved whether in a legal court of trial by jury, or in a scientific laboratory of experiment. TESTIMONY rules.
(gluadys) That is shifting the goal posts, theo. The DNA would not have been entered into evidence if it did not match samples of DNA from the defendant. That is a point which the defence attorney cannot dispute, since the defence had access as well to both the DNA of the defendant and of the samples gathered at the crime scene to confirm the match.
And THAT is living in a dream world. MOST of the DNA evidence offered in courts still today, is offered by defense attorneys to free men who have been in prison for YEARS for crimes they did not commit. When they free all the innocent prisoners, then the bulk of the DNA may well become proof of guilt, but in the interum, it is proof of innocence.
And it is with mounds of TESTIMONY that the evidence is presented.
TESTIMONY STILL RULES.
So? Whether presented by the prosecution or the defence it is still evidence. And whether presented by the prosecution or the defence, the other side has to have access to the evidence for independent testing.
Trying to shift the focus form testimony to evidence? Won't work. Still need testimony ABOUT the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/26/2008 9:11:53 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Science asserts (to my knowledge) that the "big bang" was a moment in time where nothing was gathered into one place and compacted tightly, then something happened to this nothing and everything sprang forth from it.
Actually, that is not the case. The big bang could not be a moment in time since it was the beginning point of time. Also, it was not nothing that was compacted together, but all the energy (including all the energy currently locked in matter) that exists in the universe today.
This is a misunderstanding, and a common one. The Big Bang theory cannot speak to what came before the instant exactly one planck time after whatever it is that started the Universe on its current rate of expansion, like theo_book mentioned. The big bang theory never has pretended to know what came before the big bang or even if there was actually a "bang" at all. It simply doesn't talk to it. The Big Bang doesn't even have a proper name, because no "bang" is included in the theory, but rather simply an assumed event. This "assumed event" is assumed by outsiders to the cosmology that went into developing the theory in the first place.
One thing is certain though, the big bang is not the theory of how time began. What is presently observable is expansion. What is deducible is that expansion implies previous smaller size. What is NOT deducible is that something violently initiated said observed expansion. It is only deducible that the expansion began. It is easy to question even whether all matter was ever actually collapsed on itself in a singularity.
The big bang theory is no more a "beginning of time" than any arbitrary point on any line of any length, even infinity. Modern cosmologists are now certain they are ready to glimpse "before" the big bang.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/26/2008 9:28:25 PM >
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
