Comparitive delusions

Sometimes you have to let people go when there is no evidence, yes.

Well, I got all this started...

quote:

---

Of course you would. But the comparison is ridiculous, Mod. You are imposing your own standard on the Bible believer, right down to your caricature of our belief, which of course leads you to your standard conclusion.

---

From a scientific point of view, the comparison is completely valid. And again, from a scientific point of view, Mod's 'caricature' is an accurate if somewhat harsh description of bible literalism. This is because the standard he is imposing is the scientific standard.

quote:

---

But the Bible believer uses a different standard, and by that standard people who deny God are delusional, and science is delusional when it contradicts God. Surely you can at least see the logic of this. Your standard does not apply here. It doesn't matter what you think here.

---

Faith, let me be very clear here - you made some serious accusations about how scientists do their work; i.e. saying that they were deluded, misguided, or dishonest. Simply by making those accusations and attempting to support them you entered the realm of science, and in this realm the biblical or any other religious standard means absolutely nothing. The only standard that matters for how scientists do their work is the scientific standard, because arguing that they're deluded, misguided or dishonest because their work does not agree with your pet holy book speaks of very deep-seated and unacceptable bias.We are arguing under the scientific standard. I made this very clear when I explained to Phat that this is all speaking from a scientific point of view. And from that point of view, the biblical standard is meaningless. From that point of view, people who believe that snakes and burning bushes can talk are delusional; people who rely on evidence to inform them about the world are not.Again, my argument is that you have no right to accuse scientists of such if, from a scientific perspective, you are delusional.(I would like to point out, again, that why you believe snakes can talk etc. is irrelevent to science. You could believe it because the sky is blue, or because a pink unicorn appeared to you in a vision. What matters is that you do believe it 100%, contrary to what science has to say about it; hence, deluded from a scientific point of view.)

then just witness evidence.Is that correct?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Faith, That's not what I or Jar asked. They had evidence, DNA, fingerprints, etc. the stuff those silly, silly policemen are so easily fooled by. In crimes where there are no eyewitnesses should prisoners be released?Since you ignored the main thrust of my last post, I'll repeat it in its entirety: That's odd, Faith, because you also say: What repeatable experiments, which by definition excludes eyewitnesses, do you have in mind?You'll have to excuse us, Faith, if it seems to us that you apply the "can't be known in the past" standard only to things you don't want to accept, yet relax that standard when the conclusion doesn't challenge your religious belief.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-22-2006 08:12 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

And the farther back you go the more dependent you are on witness evidence, and less and less of all kinds of evidence.

---

....The farther back you go, the fewer witnesses you have because people don't live very long. And again witness evidence is considered to be very shaky in comparison to forensic evidence.Faith, do you realise what "millions of years" means? It means that we are completely dependent on the 'all kinds of evidence' you're talking about in geology. It means that geologists are very similar to forensic scientists, except the crime scene is much, much older and there are no witnesses at all. In the exact same way that DNA can convict or pardon someone, the geological evidence left in the rock can validate or falsify a theory - it is simply a matter IN BOTH CASES of knowing what to look for and what it means when you find it, and the process is exactly the same.So you either throw out forensics and modern geology together, or accept them together. You do not have the option of accepting that forensics is valid and modern geology is not, simply because the latter does not agree with your pet holy book.

DNA and other forensic evidence can pinpoint a person. I don't care how suggestive the evidence in the rocks is, there is no way you are going to be able to have absolute certainty about some imaginative scenario about the past.

DNA does not pinpoint a person. There is a margin of error in DNA comparisions, there is a margin of error in all science. There is no way you're going to have absolute certainty with DNA evidence.

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

You can keep saying that as much as you want, but I think it is very clear that the other posters of this thread have giving you more then convincing evidence that these scenarios have much more then simple imagination behind them.(by the way, whenever you say things like "I don't care how suggestive the evidence in the rocks is" you give scientists reasons to dismiss whatever point you are trying to make. Scientist do care about the evidence. That's how science is done)

[edit]Never mind. Probably best if I hold my tounge on this debate.This message has been edited by boolean, 03-23-2006 02:15 AM

Did somebody give you the impression that science was about absolute certainty? They should be spanked.

Nope, you cannot prove that the witness actually witnessed what they say they did..or that they are not lying..or that they have bad memories etc. Written testimony takes you even further from the actual event. If you wish to be truly consistent, you should say the only things that you can say exist are those that YOU personally have witnessed.But in any case, one cannot prove anything is what you are saying..fine, science does not set out to prove....it can falsify and can make develope hypotheses that are supported by many lines of evidence and that have predictive power. That is why it is such a successful endeavor compared to wishful thinking and believing in witnesses and completely untestable unreliable testimonials. Besides, if witnesses were so great, why do courts rely on DNA forensics among other non-witness based evidence because witness testimonials are so unreliable?Actually we have TONs for human pre-history..even DNA from pre-historic humans not to mention their bones, their artifacts, their tools, their clothes their paintings and carvings, the animals they lived with..and their descendents. We have studies that follow generation after generation of variation in hundreds of species at the morphological and genetic level. These are compared to fossil series and other independent lines of evidence.Really Faith, it is rather ridiculous to keep making claims about what scientific evidence exists or does not when you have exhibited time after time a lack of understanding of how science works and a complete lack of knowledge of the state of the fields you are criticizing.Your arguments are bobbing and weaving all over the place from forensic evidence based on DNA is reliable to only eye witness accounts that you believe are acceptable evidence. You need to pick a position and defend it or just admit that you really do not know.This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-23-2006 06:35 AM

As I see it Faith's posiiton is that it is axiomatic that there cannot be sufficiently strong evidence to reject her beliefs.It doesn't matter how good the eivdence is - if it's really good then we must choose different standards of evaluating evidence must be chosen so that it isn't really good after all. No matter how unreasonable they might be, those standards must be right because they give the "correct" result.

But she has no consistent view. On the one hand she claims that DNA forensics is repeatable and valid science and on the other, only things that are witnessed have evidence which negates DNA forensics.If she wishes to believe in 2000 year old myths as literal truth, fine...my cat did not understand genetic imprinting either but managed to live out a long life...but her attempts at commentary on scientific subjects are so completely inconsistent as to be comical.My only point is she HAS to reject ALL scientific evidence and theories because they are accumulated and developed the same way regardless of the field. Not cherry pick sciences like forensics that she knows nothing about and proclaim them valid while then turning right around and contradicting herself.I am wondering why she chooses not just to reject all science and cling to a consistent argument. If her faith is really so strong as a fundamentalist, why does she make haphazard appeals to science to bolster her beliefs? Perhaps it is the stunning successes of modern science that has the fundamentalists quaking in their boots and trying to suppress it?

quote:

---

But she has no consistent view

---

I believe that I've raised this issue before. Faith has what I call an "Apologist's mindset". Developing a consistent view is simply not that important to her. Maintaining certain fixed beliefs takes a far higher priority.

I agree. But I find it would be a more consistent and parsimonious position to take for a literalist that all science is irrelevant and false. It works for the Amish..sort of.Put another way, if you don't like, don't understand, or are ignorant of science and the conclusions drawn from scientific work, why appeal to it in defense of your beliefs in the first place? Afterall, as you point out, no evidence of any kind will disuade her from her irrational views so why go to all the contortions to try to accomodate those views with science in a completely inconistent way?