|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Three Kinds of Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When you are called to be on a jury you are charged to set aside personal beliefs and to make a judgement based solely on the evidence presented.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I'm not sure which part of my reply you're responding to, but here goes.
When you are called to be on a jury you are charged to set aside personal beliefs and to make a judgement based solely on the evidence presented. But the prosecution and defense are going to try and make you decide between two explanations based on the evidence presented. If the evidence presented is explained equally by both arguments, then you have to use your personal beliefs to make the judgment. If the defense made the argument that all of the evidence was planted by a supernatural deity who not only left no evidence of his actions, but that it is actually impossible for the deity to have left any evidence of his actions, would you just ignore that possibility? If so, doesn't that imply that you don't really believe that explanation to be possible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered? Indeed. So do you personally consider that which can never be evidenced?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If the defense made the argument that all of the evidence was planted by a supernatural deity who not only left no evidence of his actions, but that it is actually impossible for the deity to have left any evidence of his actions, would you just ignore that possibility? Short answer = YES.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Indeed. So do you personally consider that which can never be evidenced? HUH? Maybe it's a language problem or some words left out but I don't understand what you are asking there? I do see the question mark at the end though.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Short answer = YES. So, if you a priori ignore a possibility, how can you say you believe it is a possibility? Maybe we're just hung up on the word "believe." In the case of a jury, I'd allow the possibility of some supernatural explanation, but I wouldn't believe the possibility. I ignore all supernatural explanations because I don't believe in the supernatural. If I believed in the supernatural, my reasoning would collapse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Okay, but you are not me.
I hold very strong beliefs but also understand that there are times that I must set aside my personal beliefs. In this particular case I am charged to make a decision based solely on the evidence presented. I may well believe that the FBI or CIA planted the evidence and know with a very high confidence level that both organizations have the capability to manufacture and plant evidence and that they have done so in the past, but even if that was claimed during the trial, unless evidence to support that claim was also presented, I must disregard my belief.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
And that's fine in the case where evidence could potentially be presented. The absence of evidence, in this case, is at least reason to suspect absence.
In the case where evidence could not be produced, where the situation would look exactly the same in either case, I see a problem. This is where any conclusion would have to be suspect. Your position just isn't rational, as far as I can see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but what you advocate seems irrational. The CIA and FBI are also capable of hiding the evidence of them planting evidence so well that it is often decades before it is discovered that they did plant evidence. It seems to me to be the height of irrationality to then consider that they might have planted the evidence and then hidden the evidence that they planted the evidence and ... on down the rabbit hole.
I see no problem. I try not to follow white rabbits down the rabbit hole.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Maybe it's a language problem or some words left out but I don't understand what you are asking there? Then I will rephrase. You say that we should not consider that which can not be evidenced, such as the GOD planting finger prints at a crime scene. However, it seems that you do believe that unevidenced supernatural actions on the part of GOD do occur. That is your position, is it not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
However, it seems that you do believe that unevidenced supernatural actions on the part of GOD do occur. That is your position, is it not?
Kinda. The actions cannot be evidenced or the entity performing the actions but the results can be evidenced. I believe that very strongly. However in the example under discussion, being on a jury in a trial, we are charged to put aside personal beliefs and to make a decision based solely on the evidence presented. We need to deal with the evidence presented.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
jar writes: Too funny. I too find your inconsistencies and equivocations amusing.
jar writes: If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered? Why indeed? Yet here we are considering what some impossible-to-evidence GOD may or may not be able to do. So on one hand you explicitly say that we should not consider that which can not be evidenced (such as the GOD planting finger prints at a crime scene). On the other hand this whole conversation is only taking place because we are considering the existence of this un-evidenced GOD you believe in.
jar writes: If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered? OK. On that basis why consider the existence of GOD at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: Since this is in Free For All...
quote: One could say that tempting fate by issuing such an easily met challenge is itself stupid - there is something of an embarrassment of riches... But here's a few examples from one thread and it's follow-on: 1) Citing a website devoted to penny stocks as an authority on hurricane frequency without doing adequate checks on the claims it made Message 256 In fact it turned out to rely on assuming that a list of selected major hurricanes was a complete list of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. Wrong! (It wasn't even restricted to hurricanes making landfall in the U.S.!) 2) Setting aside data from an authoritative source (NOAA) that contradicted the penny stock website by indicating that there were hurricanes not on the list used by webpennys Message 286 and again Message 17 and again Message 43 3) Falsely claiming that the NOAA list used as a basis for the webpennys article was "the only NOAA frequency trend chart available " when - as had already been shown - it was only an incomplete list of major hurricanes around the U.S. Message 44Whether the stupidity is in ignoring the existence of the obviously better information that had already been offered, or in thinking that nobody would notice such an obvious falsehood is left to the readers... And I can find plenty more.... So Paul, we now have a total of one message which you deem inaccurate in my eight year profile archive. You say there's plenty more.. Perhaps any given long time member would have a few questionable posts, particularly given the cited ones would likely involve some ideological bias. Perhaps even you might not have been 100% pristine in all of your 9434 messages archived. No? You say there's "plenty more?" You and I came on in the same year, 2003. We both have about the same amount of messages archived. Do you think you can cite more of me than I might cite of yours, which we find problematic, factoring in our diverse views and ideologies regarding evidences and origins regarding observed phenomena etc? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The measure of one's ideas isn't how stubbornly one holds them, but how many they convince.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Since I cited 5 messages in my post saying that there is only 1 is not exactly sensible.
quote: These are not just questionable posts, though. I really, really doubt that you can find anything in my posts that is as stupid as claiming that we should use the webpenny's list because it was or was based on "the only NOAA frequency trend chart available" when it wasn't even based on a NOAA frequency trend chart (or any other list that would be valid for working out the frequency of hurricanes) and actual NOAA frequency data had already been cited in the thread. And since you seem to doubt that I can find more really stupid claims, here's another one:
Btw, the clip which I provided shows Mollar's scientific method of falsification. He researched the Red Sea topography in the region of the long acclaimed traditional Mt Sinai, finding it much deeper and more rugged, lacking any corroborative evidence.
from Message 364 In reality, the only other "possible" crossing site mentioned was the Straits of Tiran, which is the main alternative among those who prefer Jebel-al-Lawz over the traditional Mt. Sinai and that was shallower! And, as anybody who followed the discussions knows, the traditional Gulf of Suez and the Bitter Lakes preferred by modern scholars are shallower still.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024