Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science.

Ten-sai,I ask again, what model rules states it has the ultimate, definitive, meaning of evidence to-be-applied-universally, & under whose authority does it do this? Cite please.

quote:

---

So, try again. Tell us (really this time!!) what evidence is..

---

Actually, I think I’ll wait for your definition, since I asked first, after all.http://EvC Forum: Christopher Bohar's Debate ChallengeYou may well have asked the question what is evidence before on these boards, but not to me. So please answer the question. What is evidence? I suggest you chase whomever you asked for a definition of evidence from for an answer, but don’t hassle me for it until you answer the same question I ask of you.Perhaps you could quote from the model rules? [Added by edit]In the light of this, I am fascinated as to what you find "compelling" about Mr Borgers argument for a multipurpose genome? Not the evidence, surely? Given that the molecular evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, how do you rationalise this position? I fail to see what criteria you apply to Peters evidence that makes it admissible in your eyes, but exactly the same evidence that supports evolution you dismiss as lies.A dichotomy?It will all become clear when you finally feel able to stop being coy about giving a definition from the "model rules" for "evidence", no doubt.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-02-2002][This message has been edited by mark24, 12-03-2002]

Hi Ten-sai!Your posting privileges have been restored. Enjoy!--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

bump.....------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
bump.....

​

---

Funny, he always seems to steer clear of your questions and posts..I wonder why

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
bump.....

​

---

​

Funny, he always seems to steer clear of your questions and posts..I wonder why

---

That's what trolls do. Oh, and^bump^

Bump....------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hello Mark,Prove you asked first, then I will answer your question of "what evidence is"...You and I both know it was I who first asked the piercing question; I asked the question because I know the answer, remember that's what lawyers do?So, what is evidence already? *yawn*How about all that evidence for abiogenesis/evolution? Btw, what/where/how/&when is the line of demarcation b/n the two? Could the line be so ambiguous and vague that the two concepts are one and the same?Also, if you repost your question to me about accepting evolution if ID was conceded I would answer it. Just very busy this week (Mams ); been in court where it is my job to debunk whacky theories all day when it is alleged there is "evidence" in support thereof. People's lives depend on my expertise. You?Peace,Ten-saiPS. To Admin. You are a joke. An evo v. crea "discussion" board moderated by an evolutionist is as credible as a mother writing a letter of recommendation for her son. Anyway, you unwittingly prove my charges of bias and censorship. You seek to ban "Ten-sai", whoever the hell that is...Truth is, you want to ban my thoughts because they run counter to yours (that is true, correct?). But you can't censor my thoughts. God and I alone possess that power.So ban Ten-sai, but do it forever this time. Maybe I will be back here, maybe I won't. My choice though so long as unregistered posters and anonymous email addresses are relied upon to validate whatever illusory moderating position it is you think you have. Maybe I should have cried to you when your confederates called me Ten-shite, criminal, insane, a mental patient, ignorant, a woman hater, liar, troll, etc ...! (Did you enjoy it?) Surely a ban would have immediately followed to the perpetrator for these blatently egregious "forum guideline" violations, that is, if the moderator was truly unbiased. Which begs the question, if the moderator was truly unbiased, I wouldn't have to be a tattle tale.Sorry if the truth hurts, but get your head out of your ass already. You are not as objective as you think.Bye-bye!

Hi Ten-sai!Your wish is granted. You are permanently banned.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

Percy, you don't think that Ten-sai was deliberately provocative in order to evoke such a response and thereby avoid having to answer the outstanding questions asked of him?

wj: You may have a point about the deliberate provocation, but I doubt it was simply to avoid answering questions. My guess would be that it was a deliberate attempt to "prove" bias by being so obnoxious that the moderator(s) had no choice but to take action. Although I may simply be paranoid, I find it interesting that ten-sai showed up roughly at the same time biased moderating was brought up concerning the OCW fiasco, etc. May only be a simple coincidence, but sometimes even paranoids have enemies...

Ten-sai,I’ll reply for the sake of completeness.

quote:

---

Prove you asked first, then I will answer your question of "what evidence is"...
You and I both know it was I who first asked the piercing question; I asked the question because I know the answer, remember that's what lawyers do?

---

I provided a link to my original question, you never asked me before that. This isn’t a courtroom, Ten-sai, in the real world you are sometimes expected to work a little bit for yourself, unless you can’t remember when & who you asked the question of, that is.That you know the answer to what evidence Is remained to be seen. & now you’ll never have the chance to shine. Well, we both know that’s not true, you had at least TEN opportunities to answer the question asked of you. The obvious conclusion is that you don’t have a clue how to answer the original question.

quote:

---

How about all that evidence for abiogenesis/evolution? Btw, what/where/how/&when is the line of demarcation b/n the two? Could the line be so ambiguous and vague that the two concepts are one and the same?

​

Also, if you repost your question to me about accepting evolution if ID was conceded I would answer it. Just very busy this week (Mams ); been in court where it is my job to debunk whacky theories all day when it is alleged there is "evidence" in support thereof. People's lives depend on my expertise. You?

---

This is the purpose of the hypothetical question. Whether I concede anything is irrelevant. Abiogenesis can’t be the logical imperative of evolution if you think ID can have been causal in the creation of life. Period.All,I first bumped into Ten-sai in the guise of apple toast here http://gs.us.publicus.com/forums/Forum2/HTML/000826-11.html . It starts a bit confusingly because it takes about a week to get registered. As such, I started using Sonofasailors (on his invitation) spare account, sos22, when I got my reg through, SLPx started using sos22. As you can see, things progressed pretty much as they have here. TS/AT asks questions, he doesn’t stoop to answer any. Any attempt to force him to will resort in a litany of legobabble. I accepted the challenge to provide evidence that would be acceptable in a court, & thought it would be fun! Well, it would be against an honest Lawyer, but apple toast had other ideas of what the daubert test required in order to allow scientific evidence/expert testimony in the courtroom, he basically thought no-one would notice if he added a few criteria of his own to rule 702 (Fed rules of evidence). Basically he bluffed, was called, & left. During the conversation he was invited over here, which is where he likely got the URL, refused, but lo & behold a few months afterwards Ten-sai emerges.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin:
Hi Ten-sai!

​

Your wish is granted. You are permanently banned.

​

---

Oh Damn, I just had my Lawyer friend come read this. I was hoping to have a real Lawyer educate him. =/

RedV,There was never a case to answer (OMG,I'm even starting to sound like him!), he would make a statement like "evolution has no evidence, I know what evidence is!" When pushed to back this up substantially, he would wimp out, every time. I'm not joking when I say he had 10 opportunities to respond.There's two lawyers who drink in my local, & they haven't got a clue as to what he's on about regarding "model rules". I guess we'll never know....Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-11-2002]

Has this ever been done before?

Gene,To 2 people in the last year, Ten-sai being one of them.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.