Trolling techniques

Your kung-fu (post-fu?) is strong, Sifu Pamboli. I see that I can learn much from you.Have there been others who attempted to use this style of troll-fu? I have only seen its use by Zephan/Inquisitor, the shapeshifting master of a thousand ID's and only one argument.

I was really hoping for more out of Inquisitor - like, that he might want to keep up the subterfuge a little longer before outright admissions of other ID's - but he totally went into troll-mode immediately. I'm really disappointed, especially after all that work - new topic, NosyNed's great posts - was done for his benefit. The best he can do is apparently call me names because I said something bad about his hero. Weak at best.Anyway, I can't see any reason to give his posts credence in the slightest. I'm done with him but probably not with trolls. I feel it's my purpose here to deal with some of the trolls so that the clearly more qualified posters don't always have to.

If I didn't know hillip Johnson's arguments weren't to promote a specific religious ideology (he calls his whole effor the Wedge Movement, even) I'd be more inclined to take them seriously.Trial courtrooms aren't the place to arrive at truth, Perry Mason episodes notwithstanding. One look at the American legal system is enough to confirm that. It's a system for interpreting law, and that's it. I never said that Phillip Johnson was a liar, and I certainly wouldn't call all creationists liars. I don't think it's lying to promote things that you believe in. That said, I think a number of creationist figureheads spread falsehoods, some knowing, some not. Kent Hovind is certainly one of the former. Phillip Johnson may be one of the latter.

Well, here's one - people who ARE qualified to judge the technical evidence all agree that evolutionary models tend to be more correct.I mean, if one isn't even going to make an attempt to understand the findings of science, what do we care what they think?Mike, if the bible answers all your questions about life, the universe, and everything, that's fine. I'm glad. But the bible isn't good enough for some of us - much of what is says flies in the face of our experience and sense. For us, science has proven to be a superior method of discovering the true nature of reality around us.If you're not interested in that, that's fine. But I would ask you - without at least casual knowledge of the methodology and findings of science, how is your viewpoint relevant to what is essentially a scientific question?

It looks like a community of one. Plus, maybe, Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial, which I actually did read but was so unimpressed that none of it comes to my recollection.Basically the reason that legal courts are not effective arbiters of scientific truth is because they are burdened with additional protections for certain "theories" - for instance, the O.J. Simpson trial confirmed the theory that "O.J. Simpson did not murder those two people."Under the restrictions of the constitution, that theory can never be tested again, even if new techniques allow for the collection of hither-to unavaliable evidence against the theory. So, no matter if new evidence arrived at a "smoking gun", that theory must be accepted as true forever.Not so in science, where all conclusions are tentative. If new evidence against an accepted theory is uncovered, that theory can be overturned (by a better one) at any time.Legal courts of law - jury trial, any kind of trial - are inherently unsuitable for the anlysis of scientific evidence because of their authority. And we do want authority to our legal system - the protection against double jeapordy is an important one, I believe - it protects people from being badgered by the legal system and shifts a great deal of work to the prosecution, where it belongs. They have one chance to get it right.Science wouldn't be science under those kinds of restrictions. The freedom to explore and overturn old theories is the hallmark of science and that freedom doesn't have a place in the legal system.

As Mr. P says, civil courts don't convict, but rather find liable. A rather glaring error for "Attorney At Law", don't you think? Of course, if civil court can convict I'll need that assertation supported from a peer-reviewed legal journal. (Who do I sound like now, I wonder?) True - but it is analysed in a narrow context of relevance to a particular statement of legal fault or culpability, as well as the reliability of the evidence itself with regard to the methodology of its collection. Scientific evidence is never analyzed with respect to the greater generalizations that scientific theory represents.The mere existence of your scientific experts is proof of that. Scientists are brought in to put the evidence (which is avaliable to all) in the context of greater scientific theory - something a lay jury is not qualified to do, generally.You still have yet to address my greater assertion - how can a legal court, with it's heightened restrictions on the admissability of evidence, the inability to revisit "confirmed" conclusions, and a jury not of trained professionals but of laypersons, be considered a superior - or even equal - method of gathering knowledge about reality than the scientific method?Legal courtroom procedures have no bearing on scientific discourse. Therefore judging scientific theories through legal means is just playing word games. What form would a "courtroom trial" of the theory of evolution take, anyway? I'd like your thoughts on this, Mr. Attorney.

Well, let's try this.The Theory of Evolution explains why different animals have physical similarity. Even whales have little tiny leg bones and a tiny pelvis. What could explain these similarities? Perhaps that whales share ancestry with land animals, as proposed by the theory of evolution?Now, before you go off and say "isn't that evidence of common design, not ancestry?", consider this. Designers design things specifically for their environment, with a minimum of useless parts. Booboocruise likes to say something like "The lug nuts from a Chevy will fit onto a Pontiac, because they have a common designer." But we're not talking about two different kinds of cars. All cars do the same thing - drive on asphalt surfaces - so it's not unusual for their designers to have arrived at similar designs.But if the lug nuts from a Chevy - or better yet, the suspension - was found on a submarine, where it would have no purpose, which is more likely? That the same guy designed both - or that the submarine was constructed by modifying a Chevy? That is, the submarine and the Chevy have a common "ancestor"?People don't design submarines with useless parts. A designer god wouldn't have used a land-animal body to create sea life. It doesn't make sense.The point of all this is that similarity between organisms is evidence for common ancestry, which the theory of evolution predicts.I hope that was simple enough for you. You may not consider it indisputable evidence, but that's probably because I've had to leave a whole lot out to be sure that you could understand the reasoning without a science background. Doubtless some of the biologists here have much to add; doubtless some of the creationists will attack my analogy.Ultimately, if you want real answers, you're going to have to delve into some science. If you really want to know, ask questions. We'll be patient (I will, anyway) as long as it appears you really want to know and aren't just being a crank. (That happens sometimes.) Feel free to ask away. (You might want to start some new topics, though.)

Opened new topic to field any basic questions Mike the Wiz or anybody might have about evolution or science in general. Avaliable here.

Well, dude, ask the questions and you shall learn! I for one relish the chance to explain the theory of evolution to a layperson, to the limit of my ability as a non-scientist... perhaps as a kind of layperson myself, we can communicate better.I'm sorry you're having trouble with the registration... feel free to start a topic in the visitor board if you like.

BumpHello? Mr. Attorney?Did you have any response to Mr. P's points or can we assume you have no interest in defending legalistic nonsense? Or did you have arguments to support the artifical rules of law as a framework for assessing science?Also I'd like to know under what circumstances you think the ToE could be brought to trial.