glad you didn't ask me the courtroom question, explains my existence on a small island and this fake name i use... 
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
Green_Manelishi
Contributor
H2Andy:say Green, how many hours of your life have you spent inside a courtroom?
as opposed to
how many hours of your life have you spent watching t.v. and listening to bad talk radio?
Too many in the court room.
I don't watch TV and have not for 10 years.
I rarely listen to the radio; typically only when driving and then it's on almost constant scan so I can locate some music rather than noise or yacking DJs.
None of it is relevant though because (some) lawyers do in fact work to suppress evidence that is not helpful to their client, even if he/she is a sleeze and the lawyer knows the client is guilty. I think it's within their (*cough*,*cough*) code of "ethics".
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
No, it actually has to do with the United States of America's Constitution.Green_Manelishi:
Green_Manelishi
Contributor
Thalassamania:
Do tell. Where in the USofA Constitution are the rules of lawyer behavior? Perhaps next to the portion that mandates separation of church and state?
Lawyers are supposed to represent our clients zealously. Constitutuion says nothing about legal ethics.
Courtrooms are great places to see all stages of human evolution. Between the lawyers, clients, judges, bailiffs, and clerks you can almost see it from end to end. Of course you can decide which of the above fits where.
In fact when I used to do litigation I think I once saw the missing link. At least the way he was ruling from the bench he was missing a few links.:icon10:
Courtrooms are great places to see all stages of human evolution. Between the lawyers, clients, judges, bailiffs, and clerks you can almost see it from end to end.
Of course you can decide which of the above fits where. In fact when I used to do litigation I think I once saw the missing link. At least the way he was ruling from the bench he was missing a few links.:icon10:
captain
Contributor
If there was a God he would have made us like Poppin Fresh the dough boy. I mean if God was all powerful why not eliminate all the complication.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
Please share you mastery of both subjects with us, we beg you.Green_Manelishi:Do tell. Where in the USofA Constitution are the rules of lawyer behavior? Perhaps next to the portion that mandates separation of church and state?
H2Andy
Contributor
Thalassamania:
NO!!!!!
er.. i mean...
Green... we dig
Green_Manelishi:
what, with the cleaning crew?
(kid-ding)
I guess I need to come down to this section of SB more often. I didn't know this thread was here until today. I read a lot of it, but by no means all. Somehow it reminds of a story from the days I used to teach students how to do research papers.
I used to tell them not to pick hot button, emotional issues like evolution, but one year a student insisted that he could give a good, objective balanced analysis of evolution. When it was time for him to submit the sources he had consulted, I had to point out to him that he had violated one of the prime rules of researching a controversial issue: he had not consulted each side of the issue. He had learned everything he knew about evolution by consulting creationist literature that explained evolution. I told him that to be fair, he had to read the evolution side of the debate by reading evolutionist literature, not creationist literature. He said that he would do it.
A number of days after that, he asked if he could talk to me after class, and I could not help but notice his terribly depressed expression throughout the class period. When we talked, he, a large and manly 18-year old, nearly cried.
"Why would they lie?" he asked from the start. When I asked who, he told me that when he read about evolution in a scientific source, he learned that nearly everything that he had been told about evolution in his other sources was not true. Evolutionists did not believe what he had been told they believed. The evidence for evolution was different from what he had been told it was. He told me that he had always been taught to believe in and trust the leaders of his church, but now that he saw they were flat out lying, he was totally lost. He said that now that he saw what evolution was really about, he agreed with it, and he was in a state of religious crisis.
I told him to talk to his pastor, because as a teacher it is not my place to talk about those issues.
As I read thse posts, I was reminded of this. I saw over and over and over again where people are taking their information about what evolution from people who are against it. These people, as my former student learned, use the straw man fallacy as their most common reasoning technique. That is, the misrepresent the opposing argument in order to shoot it down. Most, I suspect, do not do this on purpose; they honestly believe they are telling the truth, for they have been deluded themselves.
So I ask everyone: where did you get your information? Can you be sure that what you "know" is true and accurate?
I used to tell them not to pick hot button, emotional issues like evolution, but one year a student insisted that he could give a good, objective balanced analysis of evolution. When it was time for him to submit the sources he had consulted, I had to point out to him that he had violated one of the prime rules of researching a controversial issue: he had not consulted each side of the issue. He had learned everything he knew about evolution by consulting creationist literature that explained evolution. I told him that to be fair, he had to read the evolution side of the debate by reading evolutionist literature, not creationist literature. He said that he would do it.
A number of days after that, he asked if he could talk to me after class, and I could not help but notice his terribly depressed expression throughout the class period. When we talked, he, a large and manly 18-year old, nearly cried.
"Why would they lie?" he asked from the start. When I asked who, he told me that when he read about evolution in a scientific source, he learned that nearly everything that he had been told about evolution in his other sources was not true. Evolutionists did not believe what he had been told they believed. The evidence for evolution was different from what he had been told it was. He told me that he had always been taught to believe in and trust the leaders of his church, but now that he saw they were flat out lying, he was totally lost. He said that now that he saw what evolution was really about, he agreed with it, and he was in a state of religious crisis.
I told him to talk to his pastor, because as a teacher it is not my place to talk about those issues.
As I read thse posts, I was reminded of this. I saw over and over and over again where people are taking their information about what evolution from people who are against it. These people, as my former student learned, use the straw man fallacy as their most common reasoning technique. That is, the misrepresent the opposing argument in order to shoot it down. Most, I suspect, do not do this on purpose; they honestly believe they are telling the truth, for they have been deluded themselves.
So I ask everyone: where did you get your information? Can you be sure that what you "know" is true and accurate?
Midnight Star
Contributor
I combine alot of actual science (I love science stuff), and the understanding of scripture as my knowledge has grown over the years.
-----
Mike.
-----
Mike.
- Status
Similar threads
