Jump to content

EVIDENCE FOR GOD


betsy

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

ID twisted his words?  They took the quote from his own site!

Taking a quote and then saying it means something like he is against macroevolution is exactly what twisting is. It is trying to pull the wool over other peoples eyes. He very clearly says that his scientific background (chemical tools) do not not allow him to assess intelligent design - in other words there is zero scientific basis for it. Please repeat that a thousand times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Wrong, simply wrong.

If it's wrong, how would you explain it in layman's language?  Isn't it the scientific method that scientists use to reach a hard and fast conclusion about something?

The problem with old earth age and evolution is it is impossible to go back through that long period of time to see what happened.  There is no way to replicate it in a lab.  So all you have is scientists who come up with various assumptions upon which to try to reach conclusions.  But conclusions reaches by making assumptions is not the scientific method.  It is completely fallible and falls more into the category of the theoretical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 4:17 AM, Antares said:

 

I'm aware that people commonly refer to the 'theory' of evolution, but I don't know why. It's not a theory: it's an inevitable conclusion drawn from certain clearly observed facts about the natural world. Many things reproduce by producing near-copies of themselves which are not perfect, and which compete for resources in order to survive. That's about it. You only need to add certain non-controversial observations on the nature of the natural world, and it follows with certainty that there will be species that evolve, however the world might have come into being.

Here is an interesting article:

Evolutionists Retreating from the Arena of Science

(As printed in Journal of Creationism, Vol. 23:3, December 2009, pp. 121-127.)

This year, the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his famous book’s publication, has seen a lot of reflection on the history of evolutionary theory. Indeed, it is difficult for a 21st century creationist to appreciate the giddy optimism that surrounded the evolutionism of a century ago. Direct scientific observations from the field had been formed into a cohesive argument for naturalistic origins over against supernatural creationism. This began with Charles Lyell traveling extensively in Europe and North America to gather geological facts in favor of his theories of uniformitarian gradualism. Charles Darwin’s insights came from his field work on his now famous voyage and observations as a naturalist. Within a few decades of Darwin’s writings a series of hominid fossil discoveries (like the Neanderthals, Java Man and Piltdown Man) appeared to confirm key predictions about human evolution. Haeckel’s embryology arguments were prominently presented. Huxley offered up Bathybius, the slime dredged from the ocean floor, as the link between nonliving chemicals and simplistic life. Creationists, on the other hand, were divided and unable to marshal an effective rebuttal.   Unquote

 

During the beginning of the 20th century some difficulties emerged in evolutionary theory, caused by biologist’s increased specialization and the concern that burgeoning genetic research would be difficult to reconcile with gradual evolution and the mechanism of natural selection. Through the decade of 1936 to 1947 the Darwinian Synthesis reconciled ideas from several branches of biology that had become separated, particularly genetics, systematics, morphology, and paleontology. In some ways, this time period was the scientific highpoint for evolutionism. The Darwinian Synthesis became the unquestioned reigning paradigm of the scientific community.

Still today the scientific position of almost every large university and governmental institution remains unaltered. But since the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged. Evolutionary theorists were forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned above were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrhttp://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creatorete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research.

For the rest of the story go to: 

http://www.genesispark.com/essays/retreat/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 4:17 AM, Antares said:

 

I'm aware that people commonly refer to the 'theory' of evolution, but I don't know why. It's not a theory: it's an inevitable conclusion drawn from certain clearly observed facts about the natural world. Many things reproduce by producing near-copies of themselves which are not perfect, and which compete for resources in order to survive. That's about it. You only need to add certain non-controversial observations on the nature of the natural world, and it follows with certainty that there will be species that evolve, however the world might have come into being.

Here is part of an interesting article, not evolution, but more to do with creation:

Cosmology

The reigning paradigm in cosmology is the Big Bang. Despite promising initial observations of an expanding universe and microwave background radiation, the idea of an explosive origin guided by no intelligent hand is increasingly proving problematic. In recent years it has become quite clear that there are many properties of our universe which, if they were slightly different, would make life impossible. In addition, it seems even our place in the galaxy is purposeful.i

The odds of a happenchance Big Bang producing such a universe are incredibly small. Evolutionary cosmologists have responded by speculating about other universes unlike our universe (“multi-verse”), to improve the odds of such an ideal universe existing by chance. “Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi-verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.”ii Of course, all these other universes are forever beyond our detection. They are a metaphysical construction, a position of pure faith. Prominent in multi-verse models is “string theory,” a branch of theoretical physics that despite two decades of work has yet to produce any experimental confirmation. All the observable evidence indicates that our universe was purposefully designed.

Big Bang Theory has run into other problems. The universe is far too lumpy. It doesn’t make sense that there would be vast empty spaces between galaxies with billions of stars. Scientists have postulated the existence of cold dark matter to solve this problem. There is no clear evidence for this matter; it is only a construct to save the theory. Moreover, the experimental evidence shows that the present universe has very a low geometrical curvature in its spacetime (it is nearly flat). Theoretical arguments that are well established suggest that this is a very unlikely result of the evolution of the universe from a Big Bang, unless the initial curvature is confined to an incredibly narrow range of possibilities. While this is not impossible, it does not seem very natural. Theorists have postulated “inflation” at the beginning of the Big Bang, but this is another ad hoc addition to try and solve the problems.

For many years creationists have argued that the existence of comets in our solar system is an indication of a young earth.iii If the earth were billions of years old, all of the comets should have burned up long ago. Evolutionists responded by proposing a swarm of comets nuclei at the periphery of our solar system (the Oort Cloud) conveniently beyond our observation. This Oort Cloud is again a hypothesis with no empirical support.

While critical of the supernatural (and scientifically unobservable) origin presented in Genesis 1, the evolutionists have, in the end, fallen back on metaphysical positions themselves. Paul Davies declares that The Big Bang “represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle…”iv

Here a truth is mentioned.  Evolutionists have fallen back on metaphysical claims and abandoned scientific methods because they simply don't have answers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2018 at 5:45 PM, Goddess said:

Most Christians believe that Jesus was the first creation by God (therefore, his Son), assisted with creation, then agreed to have his life-force (or whatever - soul?) transferred to Mary's womb to be born as a human, die for our sins and return to heaven.  At some point, he is expected to return to earth as a warrior and clean up this mess.

That chronologically goes against the notion of Adam and Eve being the FIRST two humans on earth created by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Here a truth is mentioned.  Evolutionists have fallen back on metaphysical claims and abandoned scientific methods because they simply don't have answers.

Yes, when not all questions have perfect answers invoke God. What a ridiculous notion, evolution theory has a lot of refinement needed but creation has absolutely nothing to support it.

Edited by ?Impact
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you  are assuming evolution is a proven fact, you need to read this article.  There are so many holes in the theory of evolution is like a piece of Swiss cheese.

Variation and natural selection versus evolution

First published in Refuting Evolution, Chapter 2

This chapter contrasts the evolution and creation models, and refutes faulty understandings of both. A major point is the common practice of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science to call all change in organisms ‘evolution.’ This enables Teaching about Evolution to claim that evolution is happening today. However, creationists have never disputed that organisms change; the difference is the type of change. A key difference between the two models is whether observed changes are the type to turn particles into people.   Unquote

For the full article, go to:

https://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-2-variation-and-natural-selection-versus-evolution

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2018 at 6:12 PM, blackbird said:

There is no way to replicate it in a lab.

Unfortunately you are not very well schooled in the biological sciences. You need to study and understand the many predictions around things like common ancestry that have been made and later confirmed. We may not have a lab to reproduce 4 billion years of global evolution, but the that does not mean that everything is simply speculation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Unfortunately you are not very well schooled in the biological sciences. You need to study and understand the many predictions around things like common ancestry that have been made and later confirmed. We may not have a lab to reproduce 4 billion years of global evolution, but the that does not mean that everything is simply speculation.

 

Here is a debate between a creationist and three scientists on youtube.  You may find it interesting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2018 at 11:44 PM, OftenWrong said:

Looking into the eyes of my newborn children, and raising them, watching them as they grew up, I cannot agree.

The Bible does not say be are "born" wicked and corrupt. We are born innocent and ignorant .... but due to the corrupted mental environment of the world ... we invariably become to some degree morally-mentally corrupted.  ....   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Prewett said:

The Bible does not say be are "born" wicked and corrupt. We are born innocent and ignorant .... but due to the corrupted mental environment of the world ... we invariably become to some degree morally-mentally corrupted.  ....   

Mankind though, has the "sin nature." 

 

Quote

The sin nature is universal in humanity. All of us have a sinful nature, and it affects every part of us. This is the doctrine of total depravity, and it is biblical. All of us have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6). Paul admits that “the trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin” (Romans 7:14). Paul was in his “sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” (Romans 7:25). Solomon concurs: “Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, / no one who does what is right and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). The apostle John perhaps puts it most bluntly: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

Even children have a sin nature. David rues the fact that he was born with sin already at work within him: “Surely I was sinful at birth, / sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (
Psalm 51:5). Elsewhere, David states, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; / from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies” (Psalm 58:3).

Where did the sin nature come from? Scripture says that God created humans good and without a sinful nature: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (
Genesis 1:27). However, Genesis 3 records the disobedience of Adam and Eve. By that one action, sin entered into their nature. They were immediately stricken with a sense of shame and unfitness, and they hid from God’s presence (Genesis 3:8). When they had children, Adam’s image and likeness was passed along to his offspring (Genesis 5:3). The sin nature manifested itself early in the genealogy: the very first child born to Adam and Eve, Cain, became the very first murderer (Genesis 4:8).

https://www.gotquestions.org/sin-nature.html

 

It's our inheritance.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/01/2018 at 7:47 PM, ?Impact said:

That is the essential definition of a theory. You are confusing the term theory with the term hypothesis. One can think of a theory as a reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of knowledge supported by empirical evidence.

But 'evidence' is an odd concept to apply to my understanding of evolution. You take certain facts (not hypotheses) about the natural world and derive logical conclusions from them to discover that evolution is inevitable. No observation (beyond the original observation that established the factual premises) is required, and no testing is possible.

On 15/01/2018 at 8:02 PM, OftenWrong said:

Right, the poster does not understand the scientific terms Theory and Proof. 

My understanding is that there is no such thing as proof in the empirical sciences, since they progress by testing theories (or hypotheses) and failing to 'break' them. A well-tested theory is the best thing we can aspire to in empirical science; proof is not available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Antares said:

no testing is possible.

Actually you are wrong there, there are many predictions that have been made by the theory of evolution that have been tested. Common ancestry in bacteria & viruses being a good example.

11 minutes ago, Antares said:

My understanding is that there is no such thing as proof in the empirical sciences

You are right, proof is a concept applied to mathematics and not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Actually you are wrong there, there are many predictions that have been made by the theory of evolution that have been tested. Common ancestry in bacteria & viruses being a good example.

We must be talking at cross purposes. Evidently, you are referring to a genuine scientific theory: one that is falsifiable and makes predictions. I'm not, although both ideas are evidently about the same phenomenon: biological evolution. My original purpose was to point out that evolution in the natural world is something that must be happening, however the world came into being. We can know this without the support of a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Hahahahhahahahaah Hovind?  Is he out of jail for tax evasion yet?

Amazingly, I googled Ken Hovind after you made this comment because I knew nothing about him other than the evolution/creation debate on youtube which I watched and posted.

Like everything there are two sides to every story.  It seems there are a lot of questions as to why he was or is in prison.  I read this article and will examine it further but I posted it so that you can examine it too.  Before reaching a hasty conclusion, we need to hear both sides of this story.  There are many people imprisoned in the U.S., some for very minor offences, and others are completely innocent.  Also, it is known people are often given severe sentences for relatively minor offences.  In many in cases in Canada, they would not even go to prison.  This has been found repeatedly.  Ken Hovind is a Baptist minister and doesn't seem to fit the definition of a criminal by any definition.  Many believe the real reason he was imprisoned are his controversial views and his powerful delivery.  He is definitely a very gifted speaker.   So let's look at the details and hear both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions.  It is interesting he gave a prayer over the radio I believe concerning the tax agents and was charged with threatening the tax agents because of the prayer, if one can believe.  He was given three years in prison for this charge.

Quote

Who Is Kent Hovind and Why Is He in Prison?

By Art Smith

 KH1

KH2

If you don’t already know about Kent Hovind, be sure to research him and listen to his speeches and debates. They are truly fascinating. Kent Hovind is a Baptist minister arguing for Creationism and he is very convincing. Dr. Hovind also spoke about the age of the earth (young earth), the flood, the dangers and implications of the wide promotion of the Evolution theory, dinosaurs, the new world order, and most recently Post-Tribulation Rapture theory. He has traveled extensively to different schools and universities and debated many professors. Many believe that his controversial views and his powerful delivery are the real reason he is in prison.

Dr. Hovind has been in prison for eight years now, and his case shows disturbing facts about how our courts currently operate. No matter what your religion or beliefs on creation versus evolution, his sentencing seems much harsher than any wrongdoing he allegedly has committed and it points to much bigger issues. His original sentence is nearing its end, but now Dr. Hovind is facing new charges that may keep him in prison for the rest of his life. Dr. Hovind maintains he is innocent and that he hasn’t broken any laws and that contrary to what many believe he is not a tax protestor and is willing to pay any taxes he is shown he owes.1

Dr. Hovind founded Creation Science Evangelism in 1989. It is a ministry dedicated to providing evidence against evolution and showing links between true science and the Bible. He was very successful, giving 900 speeches and debates per year in schools, universities, and churches as well as appearing on radio and television. 2 His troubles started in the mid-1990s when he started receiving letters from the IRS regarding the financing of his ministry. Dr. Hovind did not incorporate his ministry with a 503(c) tax exempt status and had contractors and volunteers working in his ministry, not employees. In order to get answers to questions about ministry and taxes, he wrote an IRS agent, an attorney, and a personal accountant (per IRS instructions), and asked them to look over the finances and operations of his ministry. They all wrote back saying everything is fine and he is not breaking any laws. He sent that documentation back to the IRS and didn’t hear from them again until 2004 when they raided his ministry, stole money, and took many of his documents and records. According to Dr. Hovind they did all of this without any prior recent letters showing what law he is breaking.3In 2005 he had a Grand Jury convened against him but he was not allowed to testify or participate. He again asked what law he was breaking and got no response. A year later in 2006 they stormed the property with a SWAT team. 4

On the next day Dr. Hovind did a radio broadcast. He prayed for himself in handling the situation and for the agents who raided him, and was charged with threatening an IRS agent because of that prayer. He claims his prayer was in no way threatening. He said something to the effect of, “God, I want you to handle these folks who came against me, I don’t know what they want, I can’t handle them, they are way too powerful for me, I turn them over to you, you judge them as you see fit.” He was later charged with 3 years in prison for this prayer for threatening an IRS agent in the performance of his duty. They arrested Dr. Hovind and his wife and they were arraigned in front of a Magistrate for three charges:

1)   Twelve counts of not withholding taxes from employees, (According to Dr. Hovind, they didn’t have employees)

2)   Forty-five counts of structuring (According to Dr. Hovind, they told him “you withdrew money out of your bank in amounts less than $10,000”),

3)   Threatening an IRS agent (the “threatening” prayer).

In regard to the structuring charge, Kent Hovind claims he had never heard the term before. They were making deposits less than $10,000 once every 12 days in the operation of their ministry, not hiding any money. 5

Transactions of $10,000 or more get reported by the banks to the government, but making a cash deposit of less than $10,000 in an attempt to avoid that scrutiny, is called structuring and may be considered a felony. It is meant to catch drug dealers and other criminals. However, it is being applied to citizens in arbitrary ways that have nothing to do with crime or drugs and can lead to the seizure of bank accounts and more. For more details, refer to “‘Structuring:’ who can get away with it, and who can’t” and “The federal ‘structuring’ laws are smurfin’ ridiculous,” two great articles that explain structuring in detail. 6, 7

Kent Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison, of which he has served 99 months. His wife, Jo Hovind, was sentenced to nine months in prison and has served her sentence. 8 He was supposed to be released to house arrest in February 2015 and complete release in July 2015, but that is now in question because there are new charges against him that may keep him in prison for the rest of his life. The new charges against Kent Hovind have to do with the church property real estate, which the government has forfeited. He filed paperwork with intent to notify the potential buyer of lis pendens or suit pending, and for this he is charged with five counts of mail fraud, each of which carries a 20-year sentence, up to 100 years total! 9

There are many more issues with this case that speak of gross injustice but going over each one is beyond the scope of this article. One of them is that Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers allegedly said that Kent Hovind’s crimes are “worse than rape” when it is obvious he did not hurt anyone or rape anyone and that is not at all what the trial was about. There were witnesses who heard her say those words, yet they were later removed from official court transcripts. Dr. Hovind paid $6000 to get those transcripts, and he had to wait 16 months to get them when it usually takes two months. This same judge will preside over the case again in the coming court date on March 2, 2015. 10 Two juries were dismissed before a third one finally convicted Kent Hovind and his wife. Kent Hovind is hoping his case from 2006 will be overturned and his reputation restored. He maintains he is innocent of all charges and that he was never shown what laws he has broken and he believes he was unjustly imprisoned and that his case needs to be overturned. 11

In my opinion Kent Hovind is innocent. I believe he was set up on trumped up or even bogus charges because of his Creationist message and the fact that he was very convincing and dangerous to the Evolutionist worldview that is promoted so heavily. I believe at least some of the charges that are being applied against him, such as structuring, can be applied to almost anyone and they are currently used against other innocent citizens who operate legitimate businesses, have committed no crime, and are just depositing money into their bank accounts. I believe George Lujack is absolutely correct and said it best when he says that Kent Hovind is a “prisoner of a cultural religious war.” 12

There are several ways we can help Dr. Hovind. He would like to bring attention and publicity to his case, and he gets joy in the fact that new people continue to learn about him and his work while he is in prison and unable to pursue it. He is also seeking legal help and advice but so far refusing to compromise and also wants to preserve his reputation and that of his ministry. His website is http://www.2peter3.com/. On it you can read Kent’s blog, read court documents and transcripts, sign a petition to release him, or donate to his legal fund. A great way to keep up to date on the case is through Rudy Davis’ YouTube channel, LoneStar1776. It has many phone calls with Kent from prison and information about his case. Another great website is freekenthovind.com. There are many interviews and videos on YouTube with Kent Hovind speaking in detail about his case and his work. If you haven’t seen at least some of them, spend some time on them and consider ways you can support him in his fight for justice and freedom.    Unquote

http://www.hourofthetime.com/wordpresstest/who-is-kent-hovind-and-why-is-he-in-prison/

I heard a report about a Muslim woman in Pakistan who was converted to christianity and was subsequently charged with blasphemy and sentences to death.  It was being appealed but didn't look good.  I have not heard what came out of this.   But this Ken Hovind case should remind us that there are things happening in our own western democracies which amount to unjust persecution of people for their opinions and beliefs.   We see that recently in Canada with Trudeau's singling out of christian organizations and churches, whereby his government has said they are not going to provide funding for summer students if their organization (or church) is opposed to abortion on demand, LGBT rights, etc.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Ken Hovind is a Baptist minister and doesn't seem to fit the definition of a criminal by any definition.

Yes, far bet it for a man of God to also be a fraud artist. They are all innocent, and never stole a cent in their lives. Dr. Dino is employed by God, receives no income, has no expenses and owns no property. How could they do that to the poor owner of Dinosaur Adventure Park. Please don't read the indictment, you might get a different view than one from his creationist supporters for he is but a poor victim of the state. It is not like he has a long history of running away from his debts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, far bet it for a man of God to also be a fraud artist. They are all innocent, and never stole a cent in their lives. Dr. Dino is employed by God, receives no income, has no expenses and owns no property. How could they do that to the poor owner of Dinosaur Adventure Park. Please don't read the indictment, you might get a different view than one from his creationist supporters for he is but a poor victim of the state. It is not like he has a long history of running away from his debts.

"They are all innocent, and never stole a cent in their lives. "    "Dr. Dino is employed by God,.... blah blah"   Obviously you are very biased.  They are all guilty because they are ministers according to you.

  It would be pointless to try to discuss something which requires a degree of impartiality or open-mindedness.  Plus an enormous amount of time would be required to look into his legal affairs with the result being unlikely to come to a clear conclusion.   However, to be reasonable I will take a look at some of the links. 

I took a brief look at the list of charges.  It is a very long list, much of which doesn't have the sound of reality.  Did you go through the list?  Hovind said he prayed on a radio program about the IRS agent(s) and was accused later of threatening them, and was sentenced to three years in prison for that alone??.  The article above gives the rough wording of the prayer he made on the radio.  It doesn't sound like threats.  So it looks more like a case of he said/she said.  Choose your side.  Obviously you have chosen yours evident by your comments. 

And since I am not an American lawyer or any kind of lawyer, it would be impossible to draw any conclusions from that kind of information.  A long list of charges does not prove guilt.  It is obviously a very complex issue with his supporters making a very strong case for his innocence.  I'm not a big admirer of the American justice system.

I somehow doubt you gave any time to watching the creation-evolution debate on the video link above.   His debate on creation-evolution on youtube is still an excellent debate worth watching.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/01/2018 at 1:18 AM, ?Impact said:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. - Ephesians 5:22-23

?Impact, your argument here may be unstated, but it's crystal clear and entirely germane. This post deserved a more respectful response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

"They are all innocent, and never stole a cent in their lives. "    "Dr. Dino is employed by God,.... blah blah"   Obviously you are very biased.  They are all guilty because they are ministers according to you.

  It would be pointless to try to discuss something which requires a degree of impartiality or open-mindedness. 

Hovind is a scam artist.  And he did jail time for it. It's not debatable , it's just how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Antares said:

?Impact, your argument here may be unstated, but it's crystal clear and entirely germane. This post deserved a more respectful response.

I not sure how quoting scripture can be considered non-respectful, especially in response to someone else quoting scripture. It appears the thread has disappeared into the moderator black hole so I cannot provide any more details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a newspaper opinion piece called:

The staggering number of wrongful convictions in America

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-convicting-the-innocent/2015/07/24/260fc3a2-1aae-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html?utm_term=.11453e50b0ed

 

More than 2,000 wrongfully convicted people exonerated in 23 years, researchers say

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/21/more-than-2000-wrongfully-convicted-people-exonerated-in-23-years-researchers-say/

This may be only the tip of the iceberg.  There could be far more people who have been charged, convicted, and sentenced with questionable charges and evidence.

When people raise serious concerns about someone's situation in the system, it does raise some doubts about justice.

The American justice system seems to be in a poor state.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The staggering number of wrongful convictions in America

Not sure how that relates to evidence for God by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, there are lot of wrongful convictions especially for crimes of violence where we only have eyewitness accounts and sometimes even less than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Not sure how that relates to evidence for God by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, there are lot of wrongful convictions especially for crimes of violence where we only have eyewitness accounts and sometimes even less than that.

It doesn't have much to do with the discussion around creation/evolution, but since the subject did work it's way into the topic, might as well make a contribution.  Probably better to get back to the topic evidence for God.  Creation-evolution is a central issue to the topic.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...