Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 191 (23890)
11-23-2002 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Budikka
10-05-2002 1:19 PM


over the last two days, I received fifteen email notifications that a response had been posted to this thread. I looked at every one of those responses, and only one of them really had anything at all to do with the moving original topic upon which this thread was founded. Even that one was a waste of time, since it ineffectually danced around a topic that ought to have been resolved long ago.
I would like to argue, therefore, that this thread is dead and move that it be closed, archived, whatever. What do I need to do to get this done?
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Budikka, posted 10-05-2002 1:19 PM Budikka has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 191 (23891)
11-23-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Budikka
10-05-2002 1:19 PM


over the last two days, I received fifteen email notifications that a response had been posted to this thread. I looked at every one of those responses, and only one of them really had anything at all to do with the moving original topic upon which this thread was founded. Even that one was a waste of time, since it ineffectually danced around a topic that ought to have been resolved long ago.
I would like to argue, therefore, that this thread is dead and move that it be closed, archived, whatever. What do I need to do to get this done?
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Budikka, posted 10-05-2002 1:19 PM Budikka has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 191 (23911)
11-23-2002 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Budikka
11-23-2002 9:37 AM


"Once again Truecreation, who swore he would not post here again, posts here *again* and fails *yet again* to address even one topic in the *original message in this thread*!"
--Oh no! I've already explained that I admit to this, there are, however, reasons for that.
"For the congentially self-worshipping, this thread is not about Truecreation's apparent need for god-like recognition and adoration, it is about the remarks Christopher Bohar made to me, which I answered in a thread aimed, by its very title, at Christopher Bohar. Why is this so hard for creationists to grasp?"
--Did you even bother to read my post? Apparently not, you continue to ramble false accusations against me, which are rather on the ridiculous side.
"In view of the (lack of) argument presented here, it would seem that this thread is effectively done with, and the creationists lost."
--A ridiculous extream, if absolutely anything, it isn't that the 'creationists lost' but Chris Bohar. I've dealt with evo's as ignorant as yourself but just a bit more unintelligent, when they come in here and get smacked in the face. I don't shout that the evo's have lost.
"To address the topic of their choice, creationists need to open their own thread, and make their own case, whereupon others can come and argue that case in that thread. It is really quite simple, and it is embarrassing that creationists, who arrogantly, and without foundation, claim to have overthrown evolution, cannot seem to grasp a concept as basic as this."
--I've already done this repetitively! Though you seem to have no interest and tediously attempt to sound smart by telling me that I'm a pathetic creationist ignoramus without intelligence and playing the pre-teen game, 'I asked you first'. The thread is still open and I don't plan on closing it.. Also, I'm not here to overthrow evolution and never claimed it was so.
"By the way, it makes no sense at all to open your own thread and then beg others to start it off. "
--Others as well as myself have explained that it is very much the contrary, so this comment is meaningless.
"This, too, is an admission that you have no case to make."
--Your getting somewhere! I have not exclaimed that I have a case against evolution.
"Nor is it smart to dismisses supportive evidence submitted by the other side and then turn around and allow that their throwing in the occasional geology textbook is admissible."
--My discussions with others on topics in geology are flowing very nicely and others will begin and will flow fluidly as well. For you, however, this seems impossible.
"LoL! If that were truly the case, you would be writing science papers and publishing them in peer-reviewed journals instead of posting in this trivial medium."
--That's funny. I am not even out of high school yet, it would be arrogant to assume it be expected of me that I have publications in scientific literature. But I guess that I must then be a moron right? Oddly you put yourself as well as the rest of those who post here on that same moronic level, another ridiculous sophistry.
"So you came in to this thread for the sole purpose of explaining why you were not going to deal with the issues in this thread?"
--Initially I simply said hello, and gave you my thoughts on yourself from my experience in reading some of your stuff (should I even call it 'work'?). At the latter time of entering the thread I simply suggested that you address the threads I opened just for you. Since you kept iterating that creationists are all stupid and fail in every intellectual area, I thought we could get something going. You dismissed me as a retardation in overall human intellectual advancement and continued on your careless way.
"Clearly the truth would seem to disagree with you. I have repeatedly responded directly to you. I have repeatedly made challenges directly to you, including offering you the opportunity to state your case/make your best argument, which you have consistently failed to do."
--Don't expect me to ever do this. You havent read my posts.
"I have repeatedly requested directly of you that you either deal with the issues raised in this thread or stay out of it. Your transparent attempt to blame this all on Borger is nothing but a straw man."
--And I'd like to leave the thread. Unfortunatelly you continue to parrot drivel regarding my credibility and I don't think I'm going to leave your sophist rhetoric without response.
"Then stay out of the biology threads. Duh! It obviously has not occurred to you, but evolution is largely biology at heart."
--Shows how much you know. This is completely false.
"Creation is religion, period. You cannot separate the two, although creationists deceitfully and repeatedly try. This is why I raised the issue of proofs of Jesus' existence. My point (for those taunting windbags who missed it) was that creationists are trying to claim there is no support for a science that has far more support than does the foundation of their own religion."
--I don't think the existence of paleosols, evaporite deposition, or anything of that likeness has anything to do with the existence of Jesus or his deity. Similar as you have no intellectual incite in geology, I have little with scripture and does not interest me much seeing it is just a big battle of semantics.
"What's wrong with your thread is that you opened it by asking me to start it. If you want to debate a topic (or "discuss" if debate is too strong for you, then **you** **need** **to** **make** **an** **opening** **argument** by stating your case. If there is any way at all I can make this intellectually more clear, then do, please, let me know."
--Read the first post in the thread, I have stated my position, you have claimed in other threads that my position is faulty, I have asked you to support this by illustrating your objections. You attempted, but your sorry attempt was not effective.
"I am not your puppy, I am not going to be lead by the nose, I am not going to be the dog in your pony show. If you want to establish creation, then you need to establish creation, not invite those who support evolution to establish it for you by attempting to prove a negative."
--Wrong, this is what you should be doing! proving the negative. Why? Because you have asserted that it is negative. You have not supported this assertion.
"This, of course, brings us right back to the offer I made to you long ago: make your ten best (or even your one best) for creation and let's "discuss" those."
--If I might iterate what I said long ago when I created the thread, which everyone should and many have agreed on:
quote:
Evidence against a theory is much more effective at altering its merit than providing evidence for a theory...
--Even if I had posted 3 geologic examples for the flood, this does not say that the flood happened in any way. This is analogous to you trying to indicate the ToE as completely true on the sol basis of finding that phylogenetic construction indicates that a two species are related.
"Clearly it escaped your intellect, but the references I posted in the other thread were to support my argument that science has already made its case for evolution and that creationists need to do likewise for their own case, otherwise, creation loses and there is nothing to discuss. From all available evidence, you, apparently, are unable to make a case."
--No, actually your argument was as you said it was:
quote:
Until the creationists have made a serious scientific case for the Genesis flood, there is nothing to refute. The evidence developed since long before Darwin utterly refutes young-Earth creationism (YEC) and science has been unable to find any evidence supporting the Genesis global flood story.
And your references are likewise:
quote:
The global flood is also refuted by these other pages
--The only strawman here is your strawman of your own argument.
"[Rest of self-serving and irrelevant trivia snipped]"
--Actually, the majority of the text you decided was irrelevant, are the points which are the only ones which are, that is, they are the points I have needed to reiterate to you successively.
--Close the thread when you want to, but mine will still be open.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Budikka, posted 11-23-2002 9:37 AM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Budikka, posted 11-23-2002 1:43 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 143 by Coragyps, posted 11-23-2002 2:02 PM TrueCreation has replied

Ten-sai
Guest


Message 139 of 191 (23917)
11-23-2002 12:05 PM


Buddika, you wouldn’t know what evidence was if it hit you in the face.
Personally, I haven’t posted b/c you people bore me.
The Dr. Highbrow attitude, quite frankly, has grown old. I’ve had this debate with laymen like yourselves many times and I just guess you can say the recurring and consistent ignorant replies have become tiresome.
I am a lawyer. A trial lawyer. I happen to know something about rules of evidence, of which science sadly has none and you lost souls obviously know nothing about.
I crush your shifty semantics game every time with the logic of evidence. But this time I just don’t have the energy to engage a lesson under the Socratic Method which would take 5-10 pages of discourse to accomplish.
I know it to be true you are ignorant of the meaning of evidence. I don’t say this under pretext of insult, although you are sure to take it as such.
Anytime someone quotes Webster’s dictionary for the meaning of evidence is clearly ignorant. Obviously the first time the word was looked up. I mean, why trifle with the trivial thing? I don’t have much time for the self-righteously ignorant. Sorry.
I have decided to no longer give pro bono classes on Evidence 101. Since educating the ignorant like yourselves has lost its appeal, I must now to insist on being compensated for my time. My rate is $175/hr.
Here is a freebie for you guys though before I leave the building:
The unfounded closely held belief that abiogenesis and evolution are somehow irrelevant to each other is textbook illogical (perhaps this is why authoritative peer reviewed discussions on the logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution are consistently and suspiciously absent from the journals). Believe in the erroneous if you want, but it proves beyond reasonable doubt you are not an evidence and logic expert.
I am.
Peace,
Ten-sai

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Mammuthus, posted 11-23-2002 12:33 PM You have not replied
 Message 145 by Budikka, posted 11-23-2002 2:37 PM You have not replied
 Message 147 by mark24, posted 11-23-2002 3:26 PM You have not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 140 of 191 (23924)
11-23-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Ten-sai
11-23-2002 12:05 PM


T:
Personally, I haven’t posted b/c you people bore me.
M: Strange that someone so bored would bother to register and post.
t:
The Dr. Highbrow attitude, quite frankly, has grown old. I’ve had this debate with laymen like yourselves many times and I just guess you can say the recurring and consistent ignorant replies have become tiresome.
M: laymen? As opposed to what you are?...and I see you prefer the Dr. Lowbrow approach.
T:
I am a lawyer. A trial lawyer. I happen to know something about rules of evidence, of which science sadly has none and you lost souls obviously know nothing about.
M: your poor clients...if you are as incompetent at debating here as you are professionally it is hard to imagine you ever defending or prosecuting a case successfully...
T:
I crush your shifty semantics game every time with the logic of evidence. But this time I just don’t have the energy to engage a lesson under the Socratic Method which would take 5-10 pages of discourse to accomplish.
M: How convenient...and cowardly.
T:
I know it to be true you are ignorant of the meaning of evidence. I don’t say this under pretext of insult, although you are sure to take it as such.
M: Don't be insulted then when I tell you that you have no clue how science works.
T:
Anytime someone quotes Webster’s dictionary for the meaning of evidence is clearly ignorant. Obviously the first time the word was looked up. I mean, why trifle with the trivial thing? I don’t have much time for the self-righteously ignorant. Sorry.
M: Interesting, you waved away the scientific method and even a dictionary definition of evidence and claim we are ignorant...so you obviously have some unique definition that would have appeared in this tome you were planning to post but were to bored to bother?
T:
I have decided to no longer give pro bono classes on Evidence 101. Since educating the ignorant like yourselves has lost its appeal, I must now to insist on being compensated for my time. My rate is $175/hr.
M: You should spend your earnings on actually getting an education.
T:
Here is a freebie for you guys though before I leave the building:
M: You know it must be important when a creationist lawyer arguing against evolution starts out with the above sentence
T:
The unfounded closely held belief that abiogenesis and evolution are somehow irrelevant to each other is textbook illogical (perhaps this is why authoritative peer reviewed discussions on the logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution are consistently and suspiciously absent from the journals). Believe in the erroneous if you want, but it proves beyond reasonable doubt you are not an evidence and logic expert.
M: Oh what a compelling argument there Supreme Court Justice Moronicus Maximus....wow...don"t know about the rest of the people on the board but it is all clear...a worldwide scientific and scientific publishing conspiracy to exclude creationist literature...wow...LOL!!!
T:
I am.
M: The evidence is sorely lacking...we the jury find you guilty of stupidity...your sentence is to walk around ignorantly ranting and spouting off about subjects you know nothing about...however, you will recieve no credit for the time you have already served doing just that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Ten-sai, posted 11-23-2002 12:05 PM Ten-sai has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 191 (23933)
11-23-2002 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by TrueCreation
11-23-2002 11:52 AM


Once again Truecreation, who swore he would not post here again, posts here *again* and fails *yet again* to address even one topic in the *original message in this thread*!
Truecreation: "Did you even bother to read my post?"
Hello! I replied to it point by point, so clearly you failed to read mine before you posted yet again with blabber that has **nothing to do with the opening message in this thread**.
Truecreation: "I've dealt with evo's as ignorant as yourself but just a bit more unintelligent, when they come in here and get smacked in the face. I don't shout that the evo's have lost."
And yet this creation superhero cannot offer even a single argument - not a single one - to support his case and related to the opening topics **in this thread**. How pathetic.
Truecreation: "I've already done this repetitively! Though you seem to have no interest and tediously attempt to sound smart by telling me that I'm a pathetic creationist ignoramus without intelligence and playing the pre-teen game"
That's exactly what you are doing - trying to get me to play your game by your creationist rules, and I will not. Too bad for you! Now either deal with the issues in this thread or get out of it and quit whining like a whipped puppy that you cannot have it all your own way. Please confine your whining to your own thread.
[The middle portion of this message has been replied to in Truecreation's flood thread
EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic]
Truecreation: "Actually, the majority of the text you decided was irrelevant, are (sic) the points which are the only ones which are (sic), that is, they are the points I have needed to reiterate to you successively. (sic)"
Can anyone understand this? I gave up on it after the second "which are".
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 11:52 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 1:54 PM Budikka has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 191 (23934)
11-23-2002 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Budikka
11-23-2002 1:43 PM


Buddika, I don't think I need to explain to everyone why you are a loon, it is quite evident. I've repeated why I'm not responding to your 'challenges' in the openning post of this thread. What I deem relevant now is your continuous ridiculous excuses not to join my geology threads. And if you don't want me to post here, don't ask me by replying to my messages.
"And yet this creation superhero cannot offer even a single argument - not a single one - to support his case and related to the opening topics **in this thread**. How pathetic."
--This isn't pathetic Buddika...I explained why I'm not going to in my last post, of course your 'point by point' refutations skipped right over that part as well as all other relevant segments as well.
"That's exactly what you are doing - trying to get me to play your game by your creationist rules, and I will not. "
--These aren't creationist rules, they are methods which have been agreed upon by many in this forum which are the most effective direction of discourse, you are the only one which seems to be whimpering over that point though.
"Too bad for you! Now either deal with the issues in this thread or get out of it and quit whining like a whipped puppy that you cannot have it all your own way. Please confine your whining to your own thread."
--Since you continue to maintain your pathetic assertions against me in your previous posts despite the fact that they are horribly flawed, I don't think that there will be benefit to continuing in response to your ramblings. But again, the direction of argument presented in my thread here is the most effective course of discussion:
http://EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic
quote:
--Wrong, this is what you should be doing! proving the negative. Why? Because you have asserted that it is negative. You have not supported this assertion.
--When you can do this you can begin by replying to post # 15 in the thread.
[Edit] - For the next quibbling post of Buddika's spectators can refer to post #118 & #138 in this thread for my response, I don't expect it to contain anything new.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Budikka, posted 11-23-2002 1:43 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Budikka, posted 11-24-2002 6:26 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 143 of 191 (23935)
11-23-2002 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by TrueCreation
11-23-2002 11:52 AM


"--My discussions with others on topics in geology are flowing very nicely and others will begin and will flow fluidly as well. "
If they are flowing so nicely, would you like to address my calculations, presented through my error in two of them, as to the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by the deposition of all those carbonates in a single year?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 11:52 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 2:07 PM Coragyps has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 191 (23940)
11-23-2002 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Coragyps
11-23-2002 2:02 PM


"If they are flowing so nicely, would you like to address my calculations, presented through my error in two of them, as to the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by the deposition of all those carbonates in a single year? "
--Careful! Buddika might scream and wine about posting off topic. On a more serious note, yes your posts on carbonate deposition and diagenesis seems interesting and of course a point worth considering. I'll have to inquire on more of an elaboration for a point or two, I'll explain when I post.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Coragyps, posted 11-23-2002 2:02 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 11-23-2002 2:57 PM TrueCreation has replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 191 (23945)
11-23-2002 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Ten-sai
11-23-2002 12:05 PM


10 Sighs: "Buddika, you wouldn’t know what evidence was if it hit you in the face."
I don't see how you can even make this statement given that you have yet to present a single shred of it, and have yet to make even one argument on the issues raised in the opening message of this thread. Clearly the lack of understanding of evidence is all on your side of the equation.
I pity the client who has you to defend them - your entire case would consist of insulting plaintiff's counsel. And you would lose.
10 Sighs: "Personally, I haven’t posted b/c you people bore me."
And yet you who uses college level abbreviations cannot wait to get back in here and throw out more taunts and insults! What a pathetic, vacuous, worthless, sad, miserable, useless, hopeless life you must lead. You must definitely be a lawyer.
And what a sad comment on the creationists. Despite all their reams of writing in this thread, we have not had a single useful argument presented against evolution, but we have had taunt and insult galore. Does this sum up the creationist case or what?
10 Sighs: "I’ve had this debate with laymen like yourselves many times and I just guess you can say the recurring and consistent ignorant replies have become tiresome."
Yeah, I really believe you. Why don't you offer some references so we can go check out your form? Or is this nothing but more muted echoes from the empty, dry dusty vaults of the cramped creationist armory?
10 Sighs: "I am a lawyer. A trial lawyer. I happen to know something about rules of evidence, of which science sadly has none and you lost souls obviously know nothing about."
I am surprised you haven't been swinging your Johnson around, but then Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" has been adequately dealt with by several commentators:
http://www.ncseweb.org/...secuted_review_of_j_12_15_1993.asp
Critiques of Phillip Johnson
Clearly you are as clueless as he was about the way science works. Science is not a court room, nor is it a democracy. Deal with it.
10 Sighs: "I crush your shifty semantics game every time with the logic of evidence."
And yet you still cannot offer any here. How pathetic!
10 Sighs: "But this time I just don’t have the energy to engage a lesson under the Socratic Method which would take 5-10 pages of discourse to accomplish."
Another creationist who expects to overturn 140 years of science by divine fiat. I guess this is what you get from the Bible - the erroneous belief that you can create everything with only a word.
10 Sighs: "I know it to be true you are ignorant of the meaning of evidence."
Clearly you are the one who is ignorant, since you think evidence consists of cheap taunts and unsupported blabber. Ever win a case? Ever prosecute one? Yeah right! If you ever graduate from evening class law school, let us know.
10 Sighs: "I don’t have much time for the self-righteously ignorant. Sorry."
Yet you have time to post endless taunts and insults and sign them "Peace". I know you have no faith in dictionaries, but please, do the world a favor and look up the word "hypocrite".
10 Sighs: "I have decided to no longer give pro bono classes on Evidence 101."
That must be a source of never-ending relief to all those who had to suffer your company.
10 Sighs: "Since educating the ignorant like yourselves has lost its appeal, I must now to insist on being compensated for my time. My rate is $175/hr."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
That was a good one. Do, please, tell us some more of your hilarious jokes.
10 Sighs: "The unfounded closely held belief that abiogenesis and evolution are somehow irrelevant to each other is textbook illogical (sic)"
Yet *another* creationist who insists on redefining evolution just so's he has a better chance of scoring a point.
10 Sighs: "Believe in the erroneous if you want, but it proves beyond reasonable doubt you are not an evidence and logic expert."
Evolution is, simply, the change in allele frequency in a population, Period. That's all there is to it. Abiogensis refers to living organisms arising from chemical precursors.
They are two different things.
That's why they have two different names, you bozo. Get it now?
10 sighs: "I am. Peace, Ten-sai"
You are a piece of work, that's for sure, but please, since you pay rate is so high and your time so very limited (not to mention your brain cells) do not post anything else in this thread unless it has to do directly with supporting or refuting the material posted in the opening message in this thread. If there is any way, any way at all that I can make this any more crystal clear even to your limited perceptions, please do not hesitate to ask. There is no effort I will not spare to educate the chronically clueless, the incredibly ignorant and the overly obnoxious.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Ten-sai, posted 11-23-2002 12:05 PM Ten-sai has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 146 of 191 (23946)
11-23-2002 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by TrueCreation
11-23-2002 2:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"If they are flowing so nicely, would you like to address my calculations, presented through my error in two of them, as to the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by the deposition of all those carbonates in a single year? "
--Careful! Buddika might scream and wine about posting off topic. On a more serious note, yes your posts on carbonate deposition and diagenesis seems interesting and of course a point worth considering. I'll have to inquire on more of an elaboration for a point or two, I'll explain when I post.
Let's keep it in the "General Flood Topic" thread in Geology&Flood forum. That's where I intended it to be originally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 2:07 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 4:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 147 of 191 (23949)
11-23-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Ten-sai
11-23-2002 12:05 PM


Ten-Sai,
quote:
I am a lawyer. A trial lawyer. I happen to know something about rules of evidence, of which science sadly has none and you lost souls obviously know nothing about.
And whos rules of evidence would they be, the Federal rules of evidence? If so, should they be applicable to science?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Ten-sai, posted 11-23-2002 12:05 PM Ten-sai has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 191 (23957)
11-23-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Coragyps
11-23-2002 2:57 PM


"Let's keep it in the "General Flood Topic" thread in Geology&Flood forum. That's where I intended it to be originally."
--Of course.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 11-23-2002 2:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

Ten-sai
Guest


Message 149 of 191 (24082)
11-24-2002 3:48 PM


Hi Mark,
I noticed you edited your post to include the word Federal in there. Seems like you’re trying to make yourself appear more knowledgeable of real evidence than you actually are. Typical of the layperson.
Anywho, why would you cite Federal Rules of Evidence? You live in the UK. Don’t you have evidence rules over there? Give it a gander, read up ole chap!!! (btw, the US gets our rules of evidence from the common law, itself having its origin over there in the UK).
Next,you give us this tacit (edited) admission of utter ignorance:
quote:
And whos rules of evidence would they be, the Federal rules of evidence? If so, should they be applicable to science?
First, you’d have to give us a definition of ‘science’ (I won’t hold my breath for a peer-reviewed discussion on the definition of science.)
Second, science doesn’t have any rules of evidence. Soooooo, it would appear that any logical rules of evidence would be a help in filling this void. Take your pick, what do we care? We just want to verify you understand the concept.
Third, your statement reveals an absurd position, to wit: evidence isn’t applicable to science!
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, I’ve composed myself now. Have it your way, but just don’t use the word evidence when you opine from your soapbox. Agreed?
Peace,
Ten-sai
PS. Buddika, Phillip E. Johnson is brilliant; however, my position is not the same as his. Do you have the capacity to distinguish between the two arguments? Bye-bye, tough guy!
PSS. Someone here questioned my motives for registering!!! HA! Proves my point about evidence b/c motives influence what proponents claim is evidence (maybe you people aren’t such lost causes if you recognize this important attribute of evidence, even if the recognition was subconscious and in spite of yourselves). But how would science know such a thing about motives? Anybody care to cite a peer-reviewed resource on the rules of scientific evidence? Methinks it doesn’t exist

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by John, posted 11-24-2002 4:24 PM You have not replied
 Message 154 by mark24, posted 11-25-2002 4:01 AM You have not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 191 (24089)
11-24-2002 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Ten-sai
11-24-2002 3:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Ten-sai:
Second, science doesn’t have any rules of evidence.
LOL......
You've now proven that you are in fact a lawyer.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Ten-sai, posted 11-24-2002 3:48 PM Ten-sai has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024