|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ten-sai,
quote: YOU claimed to be familiar with rules of evidence. Now, for the FIFTH time of asking, WHICH ONE? Name it. Why so coy?
quote: quote: Would this definition be getting close? The definition of evidence are the rules themselves which memorialize the concept. If not, could you give your definition, please.
quote: I’m not upset about it, YOU brought it up, not me. Seems to me you’re the uptight one here, mate. Also, when responding to a post, if you click reply at the bottom of that message, it gives the author, (& you) a cue as to whom has responded. It’s just easier to keep track of what’s going on for all concerned. Thanks, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ten-sai,
quote: Sixth time of asking. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi all,
Page not found | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
quote: I was hoping, not much, but hoping, that Ten-sai would at least be prepared to discuss his claims of superiority regarding what evidence is. He claims to "be familiar" with the rules of evidence, but as you shall see, should be made to go back to school. The federal rules of evidence, which most states vary from to some small degree, if not accept it totally, states in its very first rule that the scope of the rules apply to courts & NOTHING ELSE. This effectively makes Ten-sai's claims moot, & makes him look somewhat foolish, since he's a lawyer & claims to be "familiar" with said rules. So, either, there is no such thing as "evidence" outside of the courtroom (it doesn't even apply to all US courts for chrissakes), a patently ridiculous claim! Or, Ten-sai is talking out of his arse. You choose. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ten-sai,
quote: The Model Rules of what, exactly? There are model rules for lots of things. You claimed to have rules of evidence, now its model rules? Please cite where the model rules state they have a universal application of what evidence is. Are you trying to obfuscate? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Well?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Joz,
quote: We both know it.... BTW Spurs lost.... Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
[QUOTE]
No they didn't. 1-1 v Birmingham.
PE [/B][/QUOTE] PE, Never trust a Leeds fan for reliable, up to date information, would seem to be the lesson to be learned...... Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ten-sai,
http://EvC Forum: Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science. -->EvC Forum: Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science. Thanks, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ten-sai,
quote: Post 18 please. I have already answered your question regarding what evidence is, & have been waiting for some time for a response, see post one. Your turn. What is evidence? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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: Actually, I think I’ll wait for your definition, since I asked first, after all. http://EvC Forum: Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge You 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump.....
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Bump....
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ten-sai,
I’ll reply for the sake of completeness.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Gene,
To 2 people in the last year, Ten-sai being one of them. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024