Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science.

Hi Mark,When I was a wee ole chap in law school learning about the logic of evidence, I studied the Model Rules, applicable both everywhere and nowhere...Then I meet you. Another wannabe lawyer who pontificates on both jurisdiction and venue, both irrelevant to logic and analytical reasoning. Obvious you never read past page one of any codified rules of evidence, nor verified your assumptions by diligent research of precedent (legal peer-review). So how about those scientific rules of evidence already? Sadly, they don't exist.Wonder if you know the difference (b/n venue and jurisdiction?) Go look it up and get back to us...Peace,Ten-saiPS. Evidence is a legally OBJECTIVE term, moron. The term is not subjective as you want it to be; maybe that's why we see all this "evidence" for (but mysteriously never against) evolution. Even Mams admitted as much in his (unsatisfactory) definition of evidence submitted via Webster. So stop using legal terms within the JURISDICTION of learned Doctors of Jurisprudence, and I'm outta here. You can still be jealous of lawyers though, what do we care?Although some educated folk might think you are downright lying about the rules of evidence (you cited Federal Rules) not applying to science, I would preempt such an accusation by saying you are just stupid and ignorant. I suppose no forensic science was ever utilized as evidence in court? You, like Gene90, have impeached yourself! Typical of the layperson.Anyway, the Rules of Evidence will most certainly apply to the civil rights suit I will visit upon some unsuspecting professor of evolution one day. If you actually get a degree in science and earn a professorsip here in these United States, maybe it could be you!Have a good day, mate.

Hi Mark!One other thing:Did "scope" (i.e. "govern") mean venue or jurisdiction? Go look it up and get back to us! We'll be waiting...When you discover the answer, tell us how it interacts with the U.S. Constitution, Federal and State Law, Rules of Procedure, and applicable and controlling case law. Your first attempt at a legal brief should certainly be interesting (you may include a discussion of how US rules of evidence are distinguishable from UK rules of evidence).Meanwhile, please don't forget to advise us of the exceptions noted in Rule 101!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are way out of your field here, Mark, whatever in the world that is?Peace,Ten-sai

Dear Mams and Wj,I think you will quite readily find the definition of "internet troll" to fit squarely within the behavior of those who would register hundreds of anonymous posts this year on this very same site to the bitter end of accomplishing nothing.Peace,Ten-sai

Hi Quetzel,Q-
Alternatively, you could give it your best shot here - on this board. Go for it, slick.T-
But you don't even know what evidence is, so how could we start? I know, we could use the scientific rules of evolutionary evidence! Another layperson giving us a tacit admission of ignorance by ejaculating a belief that an anonymous internet chat room is equivelant to a courtroom. The internet chat room is a Kangaroo Court - your field - the other is where learned Doctors of Jurisprudence prove things based on evidence. I can imagine where you'd feel more comfortable.Anyway, in order for us to "go for it", you'd have to hire legal counsel. Get it? That's how it works. You, however, are incompetent to proceed; especially since you believe a civil rights claim falls under the scope of Tort law. Hooboy!How about finding a lawyer to argue your case? Could it be that you have no case to present?That leaves us then with only you. So I waive your incompentence - nay, I stipulate to it. Tell us precisely why my civil rights claim would fail since you are so familiar with the elements of my claim? Cite relevant case law - that is, peer reviewed literature in the legal arena. You will lose this argument. So why even try, right? Too bad, you could've provided me with some entertainment. At present, the ignorant comments from the layperson peanut gallery are borish.Good luck though whatever you choose to do! With over 600 posts this year, it sounds like you lead a rather productive life.Peace,Ten-sai

M-I see you have a sense of humor too!Peace,Ten-sai

Hi Admin,Glad those are just mere "guidelines" and not actual "rules" members must contract into as a condition precendent to joining. Although I understand your frustration with being unable to control people, you must likewise understand that's the tradeoff when you allow anonymous internet surfers to publish anything-they-want on "your"(really?) website without consideration. Because I wouldn't exactly call an anonymous email account and a fictitious name a valid conduit of consideration.(Now I guess Mark wants to argue with me about the meaning of a "contract" because, like EVIDENCE, "contract" is a legal term and Mark seems to like to talk about them legal words??? )Otherwise, you wouldn't have any current members! But there's always censorship, thread closings, and bans to deal with those whose styles you don't like.So, Admin, I stand by what I said. Please give me an example of what you feel I posted was inappropriate (the only one I can think of is where I asked Shrafinator if she was a feminazi, and she in turn asked me if I was a "woman-hater", criminally insane, and in a mental hospital - talk about "if the shoe fits"!! ). Love to hear your reasons as well while you juxtapose my alleged infraction(s) against your beloved guidelines! Seriously though, this is no joke; I would love for us both to publicly look at the NUMEROUS violations of your beloved guidelines, of course by myself as well as the countless others!Therefore, there is only one solution: BAN US ALL!!!!Peace,Ten-saiPS. But thanks for the tip. My question for you: are there any creationist Admins here? You know, the ones that believe God created life and everything around us? 'Cause mesmells a bias . . .PSS. Mark, you are right. A lawyer doesn't know anything about EVIDENCE. So please advise. I am waiting anxiously for your future counsel on what YOU think evidence is, although, I have to say, this will be the first time I've heard anybody assert evidence is a subjective thing. Are you now saying science is subjective or are you saying that science doesn't work with evidence??? Hoo-boy!! What a tangled web we weave . . .

Hi Mark,I'm afraid you most certainly DID NOT answer my question about what evidence is...You said:
Would this definition be getting close? ...I must ask:
Was that a question or a statement? You don't sound too sure of yourself. Besides, quoting another source makes you no less ignorant of the topic. Was hoping for your words...Mark:
The definition of evidence are the rules themselves which memorialize the conceptMe:
Which rules? Oh yeah, you said the "Federal Rules", but then contradict(legal term: IMPEACHED) yourself in a most excellent word economy by stating the "Federal Rules" don't apply to science (I think you quoted the Rules' logically impotent housekeeping provision on PAGE ONE)?????????? Therefore, we never actually get an answer from you about what you or any other evolutionist (if you speak for them) truely believe evidence is...Let's recap:In this last post of yours, you stated you've already published what you believe evidence is...Upon review of the record, it was established you quoted another's definition of evidence as "evidence are the rules themselves that memorialize the concept", citing Federal Rules.However, you believe, although never having actually read, the Federal Rules don't apply to evidence in science (not true though, remember Forensic Evidence?) based on reading a page one housekeeping provision.????????????????????So, try again. Tell us (really this time!!) what evidence is and, remember, I admit that lawyers don't know ANYTHING about EVIDENCE. And since you've yet to tell us what evidence is (except that you quoted anothere source and erroneously believe the Federal Rules or presumably any other codified Rules of Evidence are irrelevant to science), I, as well as other lawyers, am axiously awaiting your response.Your answer will clear up the mystery as to why stupid lawyers like Phillip E. Johnson and myself don't buy your "evolution has lots of evidence" B-U-N-K argument.Until next time,Peace,Ten-saiP.S. Hint: Evolution is a conclusion and a patently erroneous one . . . Try (once you embrace the concept) looking at the evidence first before you reach a conclusion. Back to the drawing board I guess: What is evidence?[This message has been edited by Ten-sai, 12-02-2002]

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!