Evidence, framing & a cop analogy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2013, 01:45 AM
Evidence, framing & a cop analogy
Hi, first of all, I'm sorry that I'm constantly askin others to do my thinking for me, but I'm uber dumb. Today, I have been arguing with a creationist on twitter. Basically, they were accusing me of having faith in abiogenesis. It's the standard "science is observable, the past is unobservable, therefore any theories about the past are unscientific" schtick. I asked him if detectives have faith when they investigate a crime scene and drawing conclusions even though they weren't their to witness the crime. They came back saying that sometimes people are framed or confess to a crime they did not commit. Needless to say, that was not my point. I was trying to show that we don't need to directly witness an event to be pretty sure what happened. We can use the clues to reconstruct the events. Anyways, they are asking me if I think if the CIA or the mafia or whatever have ever framed someone. I suppose their point is that the clues that scientists use may lead to a conclusion that is false. Anyone have any tips or anything for a response? Better yet just come to twitter and read the conversation for yourself. I'm Nodegree@k3lvinsca1e.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: Evidence, framing & a cop analogy
(11-08-2013 01:45 AM)THEDEATHBERRY22 Wrote:  Hi, first of all, I'm sorry that I'm constantly askin others to do my thinking for me, but I'm uber dumb. Today, I have been arguing with a creationist on twitter. Basically, they were accusing me of having faith in abiogenesis. It's the standard "science is observable, the past is unobservable, therefore any theories about the past are unscientific" schtick. I asked him if detectives have faith when they investigate a crime scene and drawing conclusions even though they weren't their to witness the crime. They came back saying that sometimes people are framed or confess to a crime they did not commit. Needless to say, that was not my point. I was trying to show that we don't need to directly witness an event to be pretty sure what happened. We can use the clues to reconstruct the events. Anyways, they are asking me if I think if the CIA or the mafia or whatever have ever framed someone. I suppose their point is that the clues that scientists use may lead to a conclusion that is false. Anyone have any tips or anything for a response? Better yet just come to twitter and read the conversation for yourself. I'm Nodegree@k3lvinsca1e.

Evolution does not = Abiogenesis, make sure they understand that.

I Will have My revenge on AlternateHistory.com, in this life or the next Evil_monster

~WrappedInShadows (AKA Me)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: Evidence, framing & a cop analogy
(11-08-2013 01:45 AM)THEDEATHBERRY22 Wrote:  Hi, first of all, I'm sorry that I'm constantly askin others to do my thinking for me, but I'm uber dumb. Today, I have been arguing with a creationist on twitter. Basically, they were accusing me of having faith in abiogenesis. It's the standard "science is observable, the past is unobservable, therefore any theories about the past are unscientific" schtick. I asked him if detectives have faith when they investigate a crime scene and drawing conclusions even though they weren't their to witness the crime. They came back saying that sometimes people are framed or confess to a crime they did not commit. Needless to say, that was not my point. I was trying to show that we don't need to directly witness an event to be pretty sure what happened. We can use the clues to reconstruct the events. Anyways, they are asking me if I think if the CIA or the mafia or whatever have ever framed someone. I suppose their point is that the clues that scientists use may lead to a conclusion that is false. Anyone have any tips or anything for a response? Better yet just come to twitter and read the conversation for yourself. I'm Nodegree@k3lvinsca1e.

Respond thusly, to date all evidence we have found points to Abiogenesis if at some later date we find a better explanation for the events that began the life cycle then science shall change it's consensus as long as the evidence keep pointing in that new direction. That is the strength of science and the weakness of religion when you add new information into Science it becomes stronger and closer to the truth with religion new information is fought because it shows that the conclusions reached by bronze age goat herders were incorrect.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
12-08-2013, 06:11 AM
RE: Evidence, framing & a cop analogy
When forensics fails, it is usually in the courtroom. Prosecution and defense attorneys try to color the evidence with emotion and play on possible prejudices of the jury. However, the psychological biases of the jury do not affect the accuracy of forensic science. We can determine types of weapons or equipment (guns, knives, etc.) were used and how they were used( slashing, stabbing,etc.). When people are exonerated it is often with new forensic techniques that yield more accurate information.
As for abiogenesis, the original theist argument was the impossibility of chemical biological precursors emerging from nonbiological materials. Miller and Urey disproved that assertion in 1953 ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2...experiment ) by showing natural conditions can result in biological coming from basic chemistry. The theist's fallback argument is now "You haven't produced every amino acid required for life to occur.". Response: It doesn't matter. The possibility of chemical precursors emerging naturally eliminates the necessity for supernatural intervention.

You can lead a theist to reason, but, you cannot make him think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2013, 10:21 PM
RE: Evidence, framing & a cop analogy
Thanks,you guys, for the feedback. @NoSkyDaddy, thanks for your insights. I think the fellows purpose in trying to poke holes in my analogy was to get me to admit that we can have all the evidence point to a false conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: