Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,173 Year: 5,430/9,624 Month: 455/323 Week: 95/204 Day: 11/26 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science.
mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 50 (24576)
11-27-2002 9:22 AM


Ten-sai,
quote:
Any of the rules of evidence you happen to be familiar with Mark. Since you are "familiar" with none (I prefer the phrase "an expert with none"), you ask a meaningless question. So how about we use the scientific rules of evidence instead? You must be familiar with those golden axioms of logic.
YOU claimed to be familiar with rules of evidence. Now, for the FIFTH time of asking, WHICH ONE? Name it. Why so coy?
quote:
Mark:
Could you also define "evidence", please.
quote:
Ten-sai:
That was my question precisely, and answered quite unsatisfactorily I might add. The reason I asked in the first place was because you laypeople throw around that term and deceive others into buying into most of your garbage so-so mounds of "evidence" arguments. Truth be told, you are ignorant of which you speak. My job was to clearly point that out.
Would this definition be getting close? The definition of evidence are the rules themselves which memorialize the concept. If not, could you give your definition, please.
quote:
Are you a lawyer too Mark? Because only a layperson would argue like this (get upset) about evidence.
I’m not upset about it, YOU brought it up, not me. Seems to me you’re the uptight one here, mate.
Also, when responding to a post, if you click reply at the bottom of that message, it gives the author, (& you) a cue as to whom has responded. It’s just easier to keep track of what’s going on for all concerned.
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-27-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 11-27-2002 10:36 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 11-27-2002 6:18 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 50 (24668)
11-27-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
11-27-2002 9:22 AM


Ten-sai,
quote:
YOU claimed to be familiar with rules of evidence. Now, for the FIFTH time of asking, WHICH ONE? Name it. Why so coy?
Sixth time of asking.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 11-27-2002 9:22 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 11-27-2002 6:43 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 50 (24830)
11-28-2002 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
11-28-2002 9:36 AM


Hi all,
Page not found | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
quote:
Rule 101. Scope. (Article I)
These rules govern proceedings in the courts of the United States and before United States bankruptcy judges and United States magistrate judges, to the extent and with the exceptions stated in rule 1101
I was hoping, not much, but hoping, that Ten-sai would at least be prepared to discuss his claims of superiority regarding what evidence is. He claims to "be familiar" with the rules of evidence, but as you shall see, should be made to go back to school. The federal rules of evidence, which most states vary from to some small degree, if not accept it totally, states in its very first rule that the scope of the rules apply to courts & NOTHING ELSE.
This effectively makes Ten-sai's claims moot, & makes him look somewhat foolish, since he's a lawyer & claims to be "familiar" with said rules.
So, either, there is no such thing as "evidence" outside of the courtroom (it doesn't even apply to all US courts for chrissakes), a patently ridiculous claim! Or, Ten-sai is talking out of his arse.
You choose.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-28-2002 9:36 AM Mammuthus has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 18 of 50 (24921)
11-29-2002 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ten-sai
11-28-2002 8:49 PM


Ten-sai,
quote:
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...
The Model Rules of what, exactly? There are model rules for lots of things.
You claimed to have rules of evidence, now its model rules? Please cite where the model rules state they have a universal application of what evidence is. Are you trying to obfuscate?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ten-sai, posted 11-28-2002 8:49 PM Ten-sai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 12-01-2002 8:36 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 20 by joz, posted 12-01-2002 1:50 PM mark24 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 19 of 50 (25125)
12-01-2002 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by mark24
11-29-2002 8:47 AM


Well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 11-29-2002 8:47 AM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 21 of 50 (25175)
12-01-2002 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by joz
12-01-2002 1:50 PM


Joz,
quote:
No m8 hes just talking out of his arse....
We both know it.... BTW Spurs lost....
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 12-01-2002 1:50 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-02-2002 5:29 AM mark24 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 50 (25231)
12-02-2002 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Primordial Egg
12-02-2002 5:29 AM


[QUOTE] No they didn't. 1-1 v Birmingham.
PE
[/B][/QUOTE]
PE,
Never trust a Leeds fan for reliable, up to date information, would seem to be the lesson to be learned......
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-02-2002 5:29 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 25 of 50 (25261)
12-02-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ten-sai
11-28-2002 8:49 PM


Ten-sai,
http://EvC Forum: Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science. -->EvC Forum: Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science.
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ten-sai, posted 11-28-2002 8:49 PM Ten-sai has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 27 of 50 (25293)
12-02-2002 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Ten-sai
12-02-2002 4:54 PM


Ten-sai,
quote:
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 . . .
Post 18 please.
I have already answered your question regarding what evidence is, & have been waiting for some time for a response, see post one. Your turn. What is evidence?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Ten-sai, posted 12-02-2002 4:54 PM Ten-sai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Ten-sai, posted 12-02-2002 6:39 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 31 of 50 (25312)
12-02-2002 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ten-sai
12-02-2002 6:39 PM


Ten-sai,
I ask again, what model rules states it has the ultimate, definitive, meaning of evidence to-be-applied-universally, & under whose authority does it do this? Cite please.
quote:
So, try again. Tell us (really this time!!) what evidence is..
Actually, I think I’ll wait for your definition, since I asked first, after all.
http://EvC Forum: Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge
You may well have asked the question what is evidence before on these boards, but not to me. So please answer the question. What is evidence? I suggest you chase whomever you asked for a definition of evidence from for an answer, but don’t hassle me for it until you answer the same question I ask of you.
Perhaps you could quote from the model rules?
[Added by edit]In the light of this, I am fascinated as to what you find "compelling" about Mr Borgers argument for a multipurpose genome? Not the evidence, surely? Given that the molecular evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, how do you rationalise this position? I fail to see what criteria you apply to Peters evidence that makes it admissible in your eyes, but exactly the same evidence that supports evolution you dismiss as lies.
A dichotomy?
It will all become clear when you finally feel able to stop being coy about giving a definition from the "model rules" for "evidence", no doubt.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-02-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ten-sai, posted 12-02-2002 6:39 PM Ten-sai has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 33 of 50 (25424)
12-04-2002 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ten-sai
12-02-2002 6:39 PM


bump.....
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ten-sai, posted 12-02-2002 6:39 PM Ten-sai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2002 12:06 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 36 of 50 (26229)
12-10-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by wj
12-04-2002 8:19 PM


Bump....
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by wj, posted 12-04-2002 8:19 PM wj has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 41 of 50 (26269)
12-11-2002 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Ten-sai
12-10-2002 9:36 PM


Ten-sai,
I’ll reply for the sake of completeness.
quote:
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?
I provided a link to my original question, you never asked me before that. This isn’t a courtroom, Ten-sai, in the real world you are sometimes expected to work a little bit for yourself, unless you can’t remember when & who you asked the question of, that is.
That you know the answer to what evidence Is remained to be seen. & now you’ll never have the chance to shine. Well, we both know that’s not true, you had at least TEN opportunities to answer the question asked of you. The obvious conclusion is that you don’t have a clue how to answer the original question.
quote:
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?
This is the purpose of the hypothetical question. Whether I concede anything is irrelevant. Abiogenesis can’t be the logical imperative of evolution if you think ID can have been causal in the creation of life. Period.
All,
I first bumped into Ten-sai in the guise of apple toast here http://gs.us.publicus.com/forums/Forum2/HTML/000826-11.html . It starts a bit confusingly because it takes about a week to get registered. As such, I started using Sonofasailors (on his invitation) spare account, sos22, when I got my reg through, SLPx started using sos22. As you can see, things progressed pretty much as they have here. TS/AT asks questions, he doesn’t stoop to answer any. Any attempt to force him to will resort in a litany of legobabble. I accepted the challenge to provide evidence that would be acceptable in a court, & thought it would be fun! Well, it would be against an honest Lawyer, but apple toast had other ideas of what the daubert test required in order to allow scientific evidence/expert testimony in the courtroom, he basically thought no-one would notice if he added a few criteria of his own to rule 702 (Fed rules of evidence). Basically he bluffed, was called, & left. During the conversation he was invited over here, which is where he likely got the URL, refused, but lo & behold a few months afterwards Ten-sai emerges.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Ten-sai, posted 12-10-2002 9:36 PM Ten-sai has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 43 of 50 (26297)
12-11-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by RedVento
12-11-2002 9:51 AM


RedV,
There was never a case to answer (OMG,I'm even starting to sound like him!), he would make a statement like "evolution has no evidence, I know what evidence is!" When pushed to back this up substantially, he would wimp out, every time. I'm not joking when I say he had 10 opportunities to respond.
There's two lawyers who drink in my local, & they haven't got a clue as to what he's on about regarding "model rules". I guess we'll never know....
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RedVento, posted 12-11-2002 9:51 AM RedVento has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 45 of 50 (26305)
12-11-2002 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by gene90
12-11-2002 11:09 AM


Gene,
To 2 people in the last year, Ten-sai being one of them.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 11:09 AM gene90 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024