Zephan: What is Evidence?

It is iinteresting, especially in light of the fact that every other person familiar with the 'evidence' Borger has presented has in fact demonstrated that it does not support Borger's myths.And yet he has a cheerleader.It is funny - on another board, I encountered a chap that also claimed that evolution had no evidence in its favor, and relied upon legal definitons.Funny thing was, the case he kept refering to, Daubert, in fact produced guidelines under which the evidence for evolution IS legally, evidence.But he would have none of it.One of the universal creationist traits - never - NEVER - admit error when you have based a major premise of your beliefs on a single line of reasoning....

quote:

---

SLPx, both camps are guilty of mingling dogmaticism and stubborn bias.

---

You think so?

quote:

---

Zeph:
SLPx tends to disagree with you about a legal definition of evidence being different from an alleged, but non-existent, "scientific" definition of evidence. Both of you are in gross error.

---

Please do not misrepresent me.
Apparently, despite the fact that you seem to want to argue about legal definitons, you are unfamiliar with the way in which the law treats scientific evidence.
I suggest you read the Daubert decision. It acknowledges that scientific evidence is different than legal evidence.

quote:

---

In fact, the entire legal community is laughing their arses off right now at SLPx's last post,

---

They are?All of them?

quote:

---

although nobody really expects the layperson to understand the little things like relevance, conditional relevance, elements, predicates, burdens of proof, demonstrative evidence, testimonial evidence, expert testimony, authentication, etc, ad naseum.

---

Annd I should not expect the layman to understand that none of this has much to do with science. We don't see much testimonial evidence in a petri dish, nor much predicates in computer print outs.Please do not inflict this asinine "law triumphs all" bullshit on us. Legal clerks and wannabes are irrelevant in scientific matters, as it seems are your petty 'definitions' (or non-definitions).

quote:

---

I wish he would show us all how Daubert facilitates the introduction of the mountains of "evidence" that a Trilobyte or a Banana and myself have a common anscestor. I guess SLPx believes mere opinions are also evidence...*sigh*

---

I thought you just mentioned expert witnesses?I am afraid that, unlike you, I would qualify as an expert witness (albeit not a highly impressive one ) on matters of evolution. Apparently, the Matlock buff cannot see his contradiction in a spcace of less than 2 sentences!I think that would be called 'impeachment'?

quote:

---

Nevertheless, I find your definition of "scientific" evidence unsatisfying:

---

And, frankly, who gives a rat's ass what you think about anything?if the best you can offer to the discussion is this pseudo-legalese nonsense, then you have nothing to offe at all, layman.Of course, I cannot recall the last time that aspects of science were determined in courts of law.Maybe legal expert Zephan can cite some case law for us, in which, say, competing ideas on some aspect of cellular physiology were determined in court.CAST"Shortly after this Issue Paper was published, the Supreme Court in June 1993 issued a verdict on the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case. It essentially ruled that judges should exclude testimony based on evidence not generally accepted by the scientific community. "Since the scientific community does 'generally' accept things like fossil and genetic data as evidence for evolution, looks like Zephyr loses again..[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-19-2003]

quote:

---

Applesai:

​

DNA analysis is new,

---

And thus lies the proof of irrelevance.DNA analysis has been used in science for over 20 years, probably longer. It has been used as a tool for exploring evolution for just as long.I suggest that the legal 'expert' get out of the 1980's if it wants to be seen as anything other than a tool.

quote:

---

Here's another one for you, Your Honor:

​

Motive

---

So, when Jon Wells states that he is on a religious mission ot 'destroy Darwinism', it is proper to consider his motives when reading his essays and books?

quote:

---

I've been quite interested for some time in seeing all this perceivable stuff, nay evidence, of abiogenesis and its progeny, the first population giving rise to microbe to man. I'm jsut one of those people who are interested in logical foundations. Call me crazy.

---

You are crazy.Zeppletoast seems obsesses with abiogenesis, and can't comprehend the fact that evolution is not dependant upon it.Common creationist illogic.

quote:

---

why don't you disclose your profession peter?
same goes for the rest of you.

​

It just doesn't seem fair you should have all the fun disparaging your opponents line of work

---

Nobody knows what Zeppletoasts true profession is. All we have is the claim of an anonymous iinternet instigator and one-trick pony.Any stooge can claim to be something on the internet when they are anonymous.Nothing from Zephan/Ten-sai/Appletoast/etc. has demonstrated to me that it is any sort of 'expert' on evidence or even is a lawyer of any sort.So, as far as I am concerned, Zeppledork is some teenager with a sociological disorder.