Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I agree with John.

---

Hi gene...he seems to really like you to...Don't expect much of a coherent, rational, or informed response from this internet troll who claims to be a lawyer.cheers,
MFrom the Free for All
Hi Gene90,
You said-
People are executed when a preponderance of evidence supports that they are guilty, even with no surviving witnesses.I say-
That was the most ignorant statement I've yet to see on this board. As patently false as your statement is, my question to you is simply, are you man enough to admit it? It will be difficult since you obviously have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about, and sadder still that erroneous beliefs such as above form the basis of your alleged understanding of life. Say goodbye to your credibility, you've impeached yourself!Peace,Ten-sai

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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

---

+++++++++++++
For someone who claimed initially to be so bored with this debate your own post count is steadily rising. In addition, you have yet to make any kind of point. Since you brought up forensic evidence as valid, do you actually know anything about the field and how it developed? I doubt it as it involved scientific evidence. Again, why should a scientist give a shit about legal definitions of evidence? You seek to chase ambulances and make money regardless of the truth using the legal system and legal evidence. Science looks for the truth and how nature works...it does not rest on winning a court case or by consensus of public opinion.....have fun with the civil case against evolution...that should be a laugher.But stick around the site...you could supplement your income as a comedian with your inane posts.

Oh yeah troll boy,Show us with all your wonderful educational qualifications the evidence for genomic imprinting of the H19 locus using a legal definition of evidence. LOL! You are pitiful...your 18 posts are sufficient evidence.Have fun being bored and leaving the building.For such a high flying $175/hour lawyer you seem to have a lot of free time to post on this forum.

T-
I know, we could use the scientific rules of evolutionary evidence!Care to define this gem?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
bump.....

​

---

Funny, he always seems to steer clear of your questions and posts..I wonder why

I would not argue that Ten-sai is particularly intelligent or that his posts contributed much to the debate, but I still don't think he should have been permanently banned. I was hoping that the legal angle on the Evo vs. Creato debate would become interesting i.e. an evo lawyer entering the fray for example. It is a pity that this will not materialize.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin:
Hi Ten-sai!

​

Your wish is granted. You are permanently banned.

​

---

​

Oh Damn, I just had my Lawyer friend come read this. I was hoping to have a real Lawyer educate him. =/

---

Hi RV,
Could you please have your lawyer friend post anyway based on some of Ten-sai's posts? I would be interested to see what he has to say regarding TS rants from a legal perspective i.e. legal definition of evidence. Why anyone would try to apply legal definitions to scientific evidence etc.cheers,
M