I am seriously trying to be very objective here. Please, none of this is meant as an attack. This is a legitimate inquiry. I really am trying to reconcile this meta issue here.
We know by your use, and you have freely admitted to having a lack in formal science training.
Despite this, and despite being told this in the context of your argument, you seem to feel justified in your argument.
All I can do is say again that for me this is not an argument about SCIENCE. This is an argument about evolutionism and the geo timescale, not science. I understand that the concepts are so intertwined that it must make little sense to you, but it really is what I mean and I've said it many times. When I say evolutionism or the geo timescale are silly I am not talking about science in my mind at all, simply about this strange false construct in which science happens to be done these days.
To those of us who DO have the formal training it looks like someone who is faking it. I have been using various analogies with little success it seem but it is like when a man who knows nothing about cars pretending to have a discussion with his mechanic about the workings of a car. Sure there are some things that are common knowledge but when he disagrees with his mechanic about something like the timing belt needing to be changed and cites some rediculious reason then it gives insight into just how much actual knowledge he had to begin with.
Analogies are useless. I really don't know what you are referring to. I'm not faking anything so much as just trying to dispense with the formalities because they aren't to my mind what the argument is ABOUT. I keep wanting to focus on the deep time factor but all kinds of other things are brought into it, so I feel obliged to deal with them one way or another although they don't seem to be saying anything about what I'm trying to say.
When this is finally pointed out. Why do you feel justified in sticking to your guns? We told you that your argument is in ignorance of the things being described to you. You admit ignorance in geology. If you don't understand the examples and the principles being described then how can you argue with us?
Because I'm not arguing ABOUT geology, or ABOUT the examples and the principles.
Main question in bold. It is like two cars traveling in opposite directions. We get frustrated because you are not engaging us on the points we are making. Then some of us have the lofty idea of try to teach you some of the basics so you can potentially debate us with REAL insight into the theory. At least to me, it felt like this attempt was treated as an attack on your person. If you don't want to be taught, just say so. NO one is asking you to believe in the theory, just know it so you can properly attack it.
"Engaging you on the points you are making" seems to me to get AWAY from the argument I'm trying to have. What you are explaining is very seldom focused on the questions I'm raising. I'm not even sure you know what the question IS that I'm raising. It's not about wanting or not wanting to learn. As I said, I've read up on quite a bit of geology over the last few months, but oddly enough it doesn't deal with what I'm trying to get at.
Drat, I said this all so much better in that post I lost. I'm going to have to try again tomorrow. But I'll finish this anyway.
You are a smart creationist Faith or at least you come off as highly intelligent. At a minimum you are a very good writer. Some of us really want to engage in an intellectual discussion on the real issues regarding science and science education with someone of the opposite persuasion. But if you can't even identify the position you are calling "silly" then how can we even have a discussion?
I think I've identified it over and over.
And another thing. Why, after being informed that you don't seem to understand the issues being presented do you still feel justified or intellectually honest in continuing down the same line of reasoning on a topic that essentially is fake due to misunderstanding? The topic literally and actually becomes nonsense because the thing being debated is not what is reality due to lack of grounding in what the theory actually says. You end up debating, dare I say it, a strawman but based on mis/non understanding rather than purpose.
I hope this is clear. Once again. There is no attack here intended. If you feel that there is please point it out so I can clear it up and we can go on with the actual points.
I'm so disappointed that I lost my earlier post. I really can't recapture it. I'll leave this for now but I'm going to have to do a better job with it tomorrow if I can.
™ Version 4.2
