Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That is what many do believe, but Satan deceives the whole world.

Santa is not Saint Nicholas. It makes no sense.
Santa knows whether you are good or bad.
How does Saint Nicholas have that power?
Santa makes it around the whole world in 1 night.
How does Saint Nicholas have that power?
Santa is in very many places, malls, etc at once leading up to Christ-Mass.
How does Saint Nicholas have that power?
Santa and the reindeer fly.
How does Saint Nicholas have that power?
Santa is assumed to never lie and to never sin.
Is that Saint Nicolas?

There are a number of other things about Santa that match either God the Father or Jesus Christ.
Satan said he would be like the Most High.
BTW, why do all these adults lie to children about Santa?
Isn’t Satan the father of lies?

And why on the day that Christ was supposedly born (He wasn’t) is Santa the most mentioned?

Satan (just move the n in Santa to the end) deceives the whole world.

Lemme guess, you got coal?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Lemme guess, you got coal?

Do you do the Santa thing and why?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

A man, whose career is a homicide detective, also analyzed the 4 gospel accounts using the same techniques that investigators use with eye witness records and determined that they are true eye witness accounts even to the very words of Jesus Christ.

He is such an irrational fool that I hope everyone convicted by his actions gets out of prison.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

He is such an irrational fool that I hope everyone convicted by his actions gets out of prison.

Well it is for sure that sure that some people are innocent and convicted.
Whether that has happened on a case he worked on I have no idea.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's not the opposite, Jesus endorsed the law, which included the law of the treatment of slaves.

Endorsed, but broke

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do you do the Santa thing and why?

Not since childhood. Much like the church thing.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Well it is for sure that sure that some people are innocent and convicted.
Whether that has happened on a case he worked on I have no idea.

His lack of logic will have assured it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

His lack of logic will have assured it.

I am pretty sure that if he used the poor reasoning that he used for his book he would have been fired in less than a month. One think that one must remember is that apologists are Liars for Jesus. For him one of his lies appears to be "this is how I did my work when I was a prosecutor".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

His lack of logic will have assured it.

I have no knowledge of that, nor do you.
BTW, what amount of evidence is needed to convict someone and put them in prison for many years or life or even to be put to death?
Is DNA evidence enough?
Sometimes they say that the odds against it being another person is like 10^18 to 1.
Would you convict someone on those odds?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no knowledge of that, nor do you.
BTW, what amount of evidence is needed to convict someone and put them in prison for many years or life or even to be put to death?
Is DNA evidence enough?
Sometimes they say that the odds against it being another person is like 10^18 to 1.
Would you convict someone on those odds?

On that note, you might want to scroll around this website and take a look at the cases.

Innocence Project

We work to free the innocent, prevent wrongful convictions, and create fair, compassionate, and equitable systems of justice for everyone.

innocenceproject.org

The vast majority of them were wrongfully convicted based on "eyewitness testimony". The vast majority were then released based on DNA evidence.
What this tells us is that it matters not how many "witnesses" say X is guilty.
A single piece of DNA evidence will instantly overrule any "witness testimony".

What that in turn tells us is that "witness testimony" is notoriously unreliable and will instantly be overturned based on but a single piece of objective evidence.

You should reflect on that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

On that note, you might want to scroll around this website and take a look at the cases.

Innocence Project

We work to free the innocent, prevent wrongful convictions, and create fair, compassionate, and equitable systems of justice for everyone.

innocenceproject.org

The vast majority of them were wrongfully convicted based on "eyewitness testimony". The vast majority were then released based on DNA evidence.
What this tells us is that it matters not how many "witnesses" say X is guilty.
A single piece of DNA evidence will instantly overrule any "witness testimony".

What that in turn tells us is that "witness testimony" is notoriously unreliable and will instantly be overturned based on but a single piece of objective evidence.

You should reflect on that.

Yes I know of their work.
I watch shows where some are about cases they worked on.

And yet eventually the eye witness testimony was found false in many of those cases.

But is DNA evidence enough to convict?
Sometimes they say that the odds against it being another person is like 10^18 to 1.
Would you convict someone on those odds?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But is DNA evidence enough to convict?

If it's enough to turn a conviction around, it's also enough to convict.
So, yes.

Sometimes they say that the odds against it being another person is like 10^18 to 1.

Citation? I generally don't care what "they say" when "they" isn't specified and when what is said isn't properly supported.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet eventually the eye witness testimony was found false in many of those cases.

And it is shown to be false through objective evidence, like DNA.
This means that objective evidence is superior to subjective testimony, which essentially are just claims.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If it's enough to turn a conviction around, it's also enough to convict.
So, yes.



Citation? I generally don't care what "they say" when "they" isn't specified and when what is said isn't properly supported.

Thanks.
You then have to believe that God exists because the odds against evolution is way more than those DNA odds.

 

[ratiocinator]

You then have to believe that God exists because the odds against evolution is way more than those DNA odds.

[citation missing]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks.

You forgot to include the citation of your claim

You then have to believe that God exists because the odds against evolution is way more than those DNA odds.

The odds of evolution happening is 1 in 1.

Actual evolution, that is. Not the strawman you put up.

And having said that, even if evolution is disproven later today, that wouldn't advance your religious claims for even an inch.
You need actual evidence FOR your claims. If all you have is evidence against other claims, then you still got nothing for your own claims.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You forgot to include the citation of your claim


The odds of evolution happening is 1 in 1.

Actual evolution, that is. Not the strawman you put up.

And having said that, even if evolution is disproven later today, that wouldn't advance your religious claims for even an inch.
You need actual evidence FOR your claims. If all you have is evidence against other claims, then you still got nothing for your own claims.

So, then for those odds you must know exactly how it happened.
What was the first living creature, what features did it have?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, then for those odds you must know exactly how it happened.

I do. And not only how it happened. Also how it still happens and how it will continue to happen.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

What was the first living creature, what features did it have?

I don't know who my great great great great great grandmother was, where she lived, what she was called, who she mated with.
But I do know I had one.

Determining you share an ancestor is quite different from identifying that ancestor.

I'm sorry that after all this time you still haven't managed to understand this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I know of their work.
I watch shows where some are about cases they worked on.

And yet eventually the eye witness testimony was found false in many of those cases.

But is DNA evidence enough to convict?
Sometimes they say that the odds against it being another person is like 10^18 to 1.
Would you convict someone on those odds?

You are trying to use a strawman argument again.Take ERV's for example. They did not assume that they were in the same place on everyone's genome. That was discovered and tested by analyzing the DNA from many individuals. They were able to confirm that with multiple other Great Apes as well. And other species as well.

Once a clear,, well explained pattern emerged it was no longer necessary to compare multiple individuals of a species. The testing using ERV's is based on those multiple earlier tests. So even if you see only one individual being tested today, you still need to remember the tests from the past.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are trying to use a strawman argument again.Take ERV's for example. They did not assume that they were in the same place on everyone's genome. That was discovered and tested by analyzing the DNA from many individuals. They were able to confirm that with multiple other Great Apes as well. And other species as well.

Once a clear,, well explained pattern emerged it was no longer necessary to compare multiple individuals of a species. The testing using ERV's is based on those multiple earlier tests. So even if you see only one individual being tested today, you still need to remember the tests from the past.

That is interesting.