Trolling techniques

also i'm not disputing that evolution is a scientific theory, all i asked for is one good reason to believe in evolution, i can think of many reasons to believe in creation , and i have explained some of these simple but (SCIENTIFIC in some places) in my topic 'CREATION IS TRUE'

Crashfrog, your understanding of the purpose of a Jury Trial needs to be modified if you wish your snide comments about the ancient process to be taken seriously:

quote:

---

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.

---

A Jury does not interpret law. They are simply the fact finders. Only judges interpret the law, and this is done outside the presence of the jury. Their roles do not overlap.That said, a Jury Trial is not a system for interpreting the law as you believe. In fact, it is a well-established methodology for determining evidence for or against a specified theory, and is the most reliable mechanism in place today for ascertaining the truth of an alleged past event or fact (unless you can propose a better mechanism for determining the truth of a past event). That is the entire purpose of the Jury Trial.You are correct, however, that trials aren't necessarily about the truth, but more accurately, the "proof". The "proof" might get us as close to the truth as reasonably possible under the circumstances, although if you are looking for Absolute Truth (100% proof) of a past event, it is unlikely you will find it in the courtroom or anywhere else, including science.To imply one cannot find truth in a courtroom is a bit overbroad and, if such a statement were indeed true, would undermine the entire fabric of society in the free world. To be successful in an argument to that end, you must do more than spread falsehoods about the purpose of Jury Trials. People do have faith in the Jury System to mete out the veracity of alleged facts, and for good reason.On a side note, it would be interesting to see evolution brought to trial in order to see if it could stand up to the strict scrutiny of the fact finding process. But where and how would one begin proving evolution to a Jury? That is the question.If you are interested in getting a better understanding of the issues you are currently deliberating over, it might be helpful to read Phillip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial, if you haven't yet.Good luck on your quest for the truth. It is something we all hope to find one day, although we all may have to be content with the realization that we cannot obtain 100% proof of the truth. Ever.

quote:

---

also i'm not disputing that evolution is a scientific theory, all i asked for is one good reason to believe in evolution, i can think of many reasons to believe in creation , and i have explained some of these simple but (SCIENTIFIC in some places) in my topic 'CREATION IS TRUE'

---

Hey Mike,
IMO, I don't 'believe' in evolution. I accept evolution as fact and theory because the evidence points that way. We don't 'believe' in scientific theories, we accept or reject them on the merits of evidence.

And Inquistor has a new name A Jury does not interpret law. They are simply the fact finders. Only judges interpret the law, and this is done outside the presence of the jury. Their roles do not overlap.M: Oh really...the jury are the fact finders?..you sure about that?Inquisi-clone:
That said, a Jury Trial is not a system for interpreting the law as you believe. In fact, it is a well-established methodology for determining evidence for or against a specified theory, and is the most reliable mechanism in place today for ascertaining the truth of an alleged past event or fact (unless you can propose a better mechanism for determining the truth of a past event). That is the entire purpose of the Jury Trial.M: A better mechanism is the scientific method including proposing a hypothesis, gathering evidence in support, generating evidence by experimentation, doing the same using science of different disciplines and seeing if said hypothesis needs revision or retraction. Data contradicting the hypothesis must be addressed and not merely argued around. Does the hypothesis have predictive value?Hypotheses that are supported by evidence from multiple sources become theories. Those that do not are discarded. All are tentative as is all science. Another key aspect of science, particularly in evaluating supporting evidence, is that it must be reproducible...when not it is fetted out and discarded...look up Hendrik Schn who was recently shown to have fabricated his data in multiple publications..his experiments were never reproducible.Finally, science is a continuous process where theories are constantly tested and revised as new information comes in...general acceptance of a theory is not the end of the matter. Not so for a jury trial.A jury trial is entirely unsuitable in addressing the validity of scientific questions....or if you are not Inquistor/appletoast/ten-sai/zephan..would you care to take a stab in showing us how a jury trial could "prove" the theory of relativity? How about epigenetics?..or how about an easy one..epistasis?looking forward to it [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 05-07-2003]

Hey crashfrog, you seem to be the darling of the EvC "legal" community

quote:

---

however if you go to genesis which i first read when i was about ten and did understand it, i'm sure you'll agree the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

---

Usually, sure.What I take issue with is the idea that Genesis is the simplest explanation.Start by defining what that "God" guy all through it is. Then define how he could create an entire planet and all the life on it in 6 days. I'm not even saying prove it, I'm just asking to outline what process he used.Then come back and ask yourself how simple the whole thing is.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

It's all very simple. That is, if you'll accept a continous stream of "I dunno" as the answer. And, of course, never will know or try to know. What could be simpler than that?

The distinction that needs to be made here is that between a genuinely simple explanation and a simple description of a complicated one. If the two aren't separated, all we have is a contest of abridgement.Genesis is simple if you leave out all the details. As soon as one attempts to find mechanisms that would cause events to take place as the book describes, things get vastly more complicated, more so than "natural processes that we observe today, including random mutation and natural selection, produced the variety of life we see at present and in the fossil record." Witness gap theory, appearance of age, drastic changes in light speed and radioactive decay, vapor canopy, vegetation mats, "kinds" that replace anything from a species to a family as needed while hyperevolving at impossible speeds (and then slowing to rates compatible with old-earth evolution), et cetera. Simple? "So complicated they can't be assembled into a coherent whole" is more like it.Evolution is simple, but the beings on which it acts are fabulously complex. To understand the process, we therefore must dig into the complexity or resort to argument from ignorance, which is what the wiz seems to advocate. I would prefer to live without all the answers than simply assume an easy explanation and then shut off my brain.

quote:

---

That said, a Jury Trial is not a system for interpreting the law as you believe. In fact, it is a well-established methodology for determining evidence for or against a specified theory, and is the most reliable mechanism in place today for ascertaining the truth of an alleged past event or fact

---

This is hopelessly naive, surely.Firstly the jury can only determine the evidence it is presented with: in the UK systems and in the US system, in so far as I understand it, that subset of evidence is controlled by the Judge. So the jury does not determine evidence in a broad sense - in the way a French Juge d'Instruction may do - but only determines evidence that has been preselected and filtered by opposing sides to suit their purposes. It is difficult to see how this could be used to determine the validity of a scientific theory.Secondly, juries do not determine the truth of propositions. At the very most, they determine the persuasiveness of one version of events against another. Of course, that does not mean they are not capable of finding the truth - but they are not seeking truth in a general sense, rather the truth of a proposition against a narrowly defined and arbitrary set of parameters.I sat on a jury once where the summing up consisted of 10 minutes of factual review and thirty minutes of legal review (setting our parameters.) The judge need not have bothered. He required a unanimous verdict and three of my fellow jurors had decided that, as the defendant was a Roman Catholic, he was obviously guilty.

quote:

---

On a side note, it would be interesting to see evolution brought to trial in order to see if it could stand up to the strict scrutiny of the fact finding process. But where and how would one begin proving evolution to a Jury? That is the question.

---

The first question would be why would it be brought to a jury? What could it mean in legal terms to bring a scientific theory to a jury for determination?It would be interesting, as a spectator sport, to see any scientific theory whatsoever brought before a court. It would not tell us anything about the validity of the theory, but would be a curious experiment. Similarly it would be interesting to see the outcome of criminal trial determined by empirical science. Different horses, different courses.Trial by jury is not a generalized method for determining the truth of any given proposition, historical or otherwise. If it were a suitably reliable method for science or history then we could solve many scientific or historical issues by submitting them to juries. Perhaps a jury could sit in deliberation of some of the outstanding problems in quantum physics, or in deliberation of the neurological causes of Parkinsonism. Perhaps a jury could determine once and for all what led to the exitinction of the dinosaurs, or the collapse of Mayan power in pre-Colombian Central America. But it can be seen pretty easily that all the jury would be assessing would be the persuasiveness of the argument to a jury.Juries do not determine truth. The law determines that what a jury determines is definitive. That's all, really.

If you cannot get enough of the stupidity of the Inquisitor here, follow this link .Not only can you see Zephyr/Ten-sai/Inquisitor/Attorney at law (now THAT is funny!) in his "Apple toast" guise, you can also see he equally stupid brother "Candyman" strut his idiocy as well!What a pair!I was 'recruited' by SonofaSailor, and I posted there as SonOfASailor22, starting on this page . Notice how Zephan/etc. not only uses the same tactics there, but also the same arguments. What is more, he tried using the same crap about taxes and public universities there that he tried to here, wherein I pointed out his stupidity for the umpteenth time. You'd think a 'lawyer' would learn from their mistakes....Apple dork's "brother" Candyass states trimphantly at one point that germs do not cause disease. AND he claims to have a master's degree in chemistry.Let me guess - home schooled... abused physically, emotionally, and probably sexually by their father/priest/both...Voila!out pops the pseudo-know-it-all troll Zepple sai-toast and his beggery buddy Candybutt![This message has been edited by SLPx, 05-07-2003]

quote:

---

Mam:
Wordswordsman was a bit different as he did not post under multiple IDs. In addition, when I pushed him to support his argument and presented evidence supporting evolution his defense was to claim I was an evil sorcerer and that it went against his religion to communicate with me. Shortly thereafter he bailed out of the forum.
I vaguely recall that you had a similar experience with Wordy

---

If I amn ot mistaken, Wordy joined Terry the Worm's place when I was over there. He started a thread (or maybe replied in one, I don't recall) in which he made a similar claim - that evolutionists are sorcerer's or some such drivel.Any guesses as to what The worm's response was?

quote:

---

Inquisitor has no class, despite sounding like a class act idiot. He/she is just another creationist who obviously doesn't understand real science. Sad what creationism can do to a mind, huh? Besides, you made an excellent point about non-scientist PJ spreading lies. Aren't all creationists, by definition, liars anyway? (duh!) Probably the reason Inquisitor got upset was because he was liar PJ himself!!

---

Hey - I started a thread (two, actually) with that name!

Just why would the verdict of a jury have any relevance to a natural process that will happen wether they believe it or not?You seem to be so far up your own wannabe Perry Mason arse that you can't comprehend that natural phenomena can't be legislated against...."It still moves!"

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.

Crashfrog,OJ Simpson was convicted at a civil trial in a wrongful death action.At the criminal trial, the state failed to prove the case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict, however, does not mean OJ was innocent, or that the trial "confirmed the theory that OJ did not murder those two people." Quite the contrary, as evidenced by the subsequent guilty verdict at his civil trial. Think of it as the state just failed to prove its case. Not proven = Not guilty, but does not mean it proves innocence.I believe they still use the phrase "not proven" for verdicts in the UK so as not to confuse people into thinking that just because something is not proven, the theory of innocence is proven.You also said:
"Legal courts of law - jury trial, any kind of trial - are inherently unsuitable for the anlysis of scientific evidence because of their authority"This is also incorrect. You wouldn't have much luck convincing any lawyer, judge, or jury with this false assertion. But maybe you are right, and the entire legal community is wrong. FYI: Scientific evidence is analyzed every day in courts of law all over the land. Many scientists are actually experts whose sole job is to testify about scientific evidence!See, you learn something new every day!!! (but only if you want to)