Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Won't Creationists Learn?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 59 (235820)
08-23-2005 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by dsv
08-23-2005 1:40 AM


Re: Sorry for the late entry.
You're right. I missed the part where you said it sometimes leads to a decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by dsv, posted 08-23-2005 1:40 AM dsv has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 59 (235823)
08-23-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jazzns
08-22-2005 3:05 PM


Re: For Jazz, RE: This whole thread
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jazzns, posted 08-22-2005 3:05 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2005 3:33 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 49 by Jazzns, posted 08-23-2005 10:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 50 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 9:01 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 48 of 59 (235830)
08-23-2005 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
08-23-2005 2:46 AM


Re: For Jazz, RE: This whole thread
quote:
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.
But they ARE part of science. They are the conclusions of many decades of scientific work. And without understanding that work you are in no position to judge that they are "ridiculous". Your prejudice against these parts of science is preventing you from even acknowledging the fact that they ARE scientific.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-23-2005 10:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 08-23-2005 2:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 49 of 59 (235917)
08-23-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
08-23-2005 2:46 AM


Re: For Jazz, RE: This whole thread
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.
But we are pointing to the science in our refutations and you are engaging us in that domain after that.
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.
But they are exactly dealing with what you are trying to say. Your opponents are trying to debate with you, show you how you are wrong and to do that the tool is objective scientific inquiry. I don't mean for this to sound rude at all but this is a debate thread. Your opponents are making very specific points with regard to fact and theory. If you feel that the theory is silly don't you think you need to know "what" the theory is and "why" the theory is first? Because what you are doing is exactly attacking the theory and you do so in ignorance of it both demonstrated and freely admitted. If you wanted simply to post your opinion unencumbered maybe starting a blog about the subject might be better suited for you. Again I mean no insult by that. It may just be more your style.
Because I'm not arguing ABOUT geology, or ABOUT the examples and the principles.
But we are using these principles to address your claims. Once again this is a debate. You bring up a claim, we address it with principle X. Further discussion regarding principle X then decends into nonsense based on not understanding what principle X really is. If you don't understand principle X, don't you feel it would be better just to say, "I don't really understand but I believe it be wrong because of my faith?" Instead what you are doing is either repeat your original claim with various other explanations that fail to address why principle X is important, or make an attempt to discredit principle X based on a misunderstanding of it. I still tend to think that your misunderstandings are innocent but they are misunderstandings none the less.
Your opponents make it about the geology and the principles when they post an explanation/refutation to your claims. You chose to engage those refutations and thus are addressing the science and the principles therin.
"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.
Thats paragraph in particular is interesting and I would like you to focus on it for a minute. "seems to me to get AWAY from the argument I'm trying to have" shows me that there is a lack of understanding as to why the points being raised refute your claims. They do not "get AWAY from the argument" they are refutations of the argument. That you don't understand why or how they are refutations should be a good indicator for you why there is this constant frustration.
Faith we are addressing your claims. Then when it dosen't seem like you understand the refutation we try to tell you that it dosen't seem like you understood. This is not an attack upon you but rather simply identifing the knowledge gap between posters. We are talking about valid counterpoints to your claims for which you most certainly are "faking it" in terms of your attempt to discredit them. When this happens it makes you SEEM dishonest. I know you don't feel like you have been dishonest but that is what it looks like to us on the other side who simply see and argument that does nothing to address the counter point and often does nothing more than the equivalent of repeating the original claim. Can you at least understand why sometimes WE FEEL like you are being dishonest?
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.
I am very sorry you lost your post. I would loved to have read it. It only took loosing my post one time for me to learn to write substantial posts in an word editor where I could save it. Hopefully a good tip for the future.
Jazzns previously writes:
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.
That is the MAIN point of discussion here. You most certainly have not identified the position you are calling "silly" because you have both demonstrated and admitted a lack of understanding of the basic theory. What you are calling "silly" are things like great age, sedimentation principles, mutations, etc which are the theory. When you call these things "obviously silly" you ARE attacking the theory for which you do not understand. I have asked this question now many times. Don't you feel that it would be better as a YEC to base your offensive debate upon an actual understanding of the theories you disagree with?
Again no one is asking you to BELIEVE in mainstream geology or the ToE but I want to know why you feel justified in attacking it without even knowing what it is.
Without trying to be condescending, I just would like to point out in closing again that none of this is indented as an assault on your person. In the interest of keeping this debate civil I will make sure to clarify this often as it seems to have caused problems in the past when I have not done so.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 08-23-2005 2:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 50 of 59 (236724)
08-25-2005 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
08-23-2005 2:46 AM


Re: For Jazz, RE: This whole thread
Faith writes:
I apologize for my seeming rudeness but I AM making sense and I get SO tired of this insistence that I understand YOUR vocabulary and YOUR evolutionist assumptions when I'm trying to COUNTER those assumptions. Yes I know you sincerely think I need to know these specific things. I know more than you think I know but I also know I don't need to know them for what I'm trying to say.
Obviously you do not have a problem with what you said above or else you would not have said it. Can you AT LEAST see why we might think this is maddeningly rediculous?
To me, this in on par with crashfrog saying that he dosen't read posts that are too long before he replies to them. I just cannot imagine a person with interest in honest discussion would actually say such a thing as the above.
How can you possibly attack anything properly that you do not understand?

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 08-23-2005 2:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 9:22 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 51 of 59 (236731)
08-25-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Jazzns
08-25-2005 9:01 AM


Re: For Jazz, RE: This whole thread
Yes I went too far with that statement but it gets at something I'm trying to get at nevertheless. I described the geo column in such a way as to demonstrate the absurdity of the interpretation of great age, the just-so arrangement of fossils in distinct strata of distinctly different sediments for instance not fitting the OE idea of buildup over millions of years at all, but much better fitting the idea of rapid deposition of sediments. The usual way of answering me is to bring in all kinds of OTHER things and demand that I attend to THOSE while ignoring what I was showing about the basic absurdity of the idea OR just flatly insisting that it's not absurd or that this or that complicated scenario of rising and falling sea level could possibly explain it. Even holmes just now said that there could be many interpretations of the Grand Canyon formation. Really? But I thought geologists had it all worked out and I'm just to learn it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 09:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 9:01 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 10:56 AM Faith has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 52 of 59 (236767)
08-25-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
08-25-2005 9:22 AM


Diagnosing a deeper problem.
My whole purpose for even starting this thread was to try to root our why it seems that our discussion always descend into frustration. My first though along that line of thinking are these cases where it is actually very obvious that you do not understand the arguments you are attacking. Hence this thread.
Yes I went too far with that statement but it gets at something I'm trying to get at nevertheless.
This is a start but it still does not answer the question. Before you can properly attack OE concepts don't you feel like you should understand them without necessary believing in them? If not then why not? If yes then is there any way that we can help you get to that point of understanding?
Continuing:
The usual way of answering me is to bring in all kinds of OTHER things and demand that I attend to THOSE while ignoring what I was showing about the basic absurdity of the idea OR just flatly insisting that it's not absurd or that this or that complicated scenario of rising and falling sea level could possibly explain it.
Part of the problem is that many times those "OTHER" things are actualy adressing your claims of "absurdity" and in your responses you demonstrate simply that you didn't understand how they address it. NO one here is trying to take away your belief in the absurdity of it all. That being said, often the rebuttal against your reason for belief in absurdity can only be addressed by an attempt to correct your misinterpretation of the theorey. I don't think anyone here really thinks that they can change your belief that it is absurd but we at least want to make sure that your belief is based on an actual understanding of the theorey. Blast it all you want for whatever reason but do so for what it actually is rather than what you concieve that it is.
Last:
Even holmes just now said that there could be many interpretations of the Grand Canyon formation. Really? But I thought geologists had it all worked out and I'm just to learn it.
Here is where I think the "deeper problem" is. I couldn't find where holmes said this but it dosen't really matter. Even if there is many interpretations of how the GC formed they are going to USE OE theory. They all will still have to explain each of the facts from the layers, fossils, unconformities, cross-bedding, radiometric data, etc. I would expect that the "many" interpretations of the formation of the GC are only going to differ on the finer points and not on the obvious such as the sequence of events, relative age, depositional environments, etc.
The theory is the TOOLS used to reconstruct the geologic history of something like the GC. THAT is why we were totally missing eachother on the other thread about the oil. It isn't just the state of the formation that is important but also the WHY and HOW it got that way. In order to dispute that there must be a different WHY and HOW it got that way derived from a different theory that is just as successful in practical application as the original.
Please lets not get back into that discussion. The point is that I am of the strong opinion that you don't really know what the theory is and as such are misidentifying it and misinterpreting it only to your own demise. To those of us whom you are addressing it obvious and the barrier that it creates is the primary source of the frustration for both sides.
In conclusion:
Have your belief that OE Geology and the ToE are absurd. Please just help us identify the areas that you wish to discuss for which you are ignorant of the actual theory so we can help you learn it if you like. Please understand that, when you continue like you do, it looks as though you are not only willfully but sometimes even purposfully ignorant due to your deep personal disbelief in modern scientific theories.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-25-2005 08:58 AM

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 9:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 11:06 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 54 by randman, posted 08-25-2005 11:25 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 53 of 59 (236775)
08-25-2005 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jazzns
08-25-2005 10:56 AM


Re: Diagnosing a deeper problem.
You keep saying I don't understand what the theory is, so instead of taking me to task about supposedly not understanding it, how about telling me what this theory is that I supposedly am not understanding. What I don't understand is your whole approach to this problem. You want to allow me the right to call the whole thing absurd but you don't even stop to consider how it might in fact be absurd, you just go right on with the evolutionist rationalizations of it all. Well fine, spell out this theory you say I don't understand. I'll get back to you later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 10:56 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 11:39 AM Faith has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 54 of 59 (236783)
08-25-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jazzns
08-25-2005 10:56 AM


Re: Diagnosing a deeper problem.
You need to cool down. The fact some folks don't believe in what you do is not evidence they don't understand it. It's just evidence they don't but into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 10:56 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 11:45 AM randman has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 55 of 59 (236787)
08-25-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
08-25-2005 11:06 AM


Re: Diagnosing a deeper problem.
You keep saying I don't understand what the theory is, so instead of taking me to task about supposedly not understanding it, how about telling me what this theory is that I supposedly am not understanding.
What the heck do you think I and may others have been doing across hundreds of posts to you? Especially recently.
You want to allow me the right to call the whole thing absurd but you don't even stop to consider how it might in fact be absurd, you just go right on with the evolutionist rationalizations of it all.
Assuming too much. I got started in this debate trying to figure out what was right. I still continue that search waiting for someone to show me how modern scientific theory is absurd. The problem is, you have never done so because you are describing as absurd something completely different from modern scientific theory. I have no emotional investment in evolution or geology. I just want to know the truth and so far I have not only heard no truth from YECism but dishonesty regardless if it is intentional or not.
Well fine, spell out this theory you say I don't understand. I'll get back to you later.
Yea, that certainly motivates me to spend countless hours filling up this forum with a regurgitation of semester upon semester of my education. How about you start over, coax the admins to let you back into the science fora with the intent of readdressing one issue of interest to you. If you approach the situation with a little bit of humility I am sure there will be plenty of people lined up to answer your questions. Take a cue from TheLiteralist. Probably as staunch a YEC as you but came in here after some time bring up some issue that were actually much closer to a criticism of theories we are all at this forum to talk about. No one is asking you to be a geology whiz in a week but there is seriously an awesome knowlege base here on this forum to tap.
I cannot wait for the day that you post an actual criticism of OE or the ToE. I am hungry for it. Only by putting these issues to the fire will we even know the truth.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 11:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 12:10 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 56 of 59 (236791)
08-25-2005 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
08-25-2005 11:25 AM


Re: Diagnosing a deeper problem.
If you want to join the thread join the thread. I was under the impression that you had a very low opinon of it.
No where did I say that YECs don't understand mainstream theory because the don't believe in it. Most of the time they are ignorant simply because they don't have or don't care to have education in the topics they are critical of. That many of these discussion are awash with ignorance from creationists is not up for debate.
Address the actual issues raised in this thread or don't participate. It is simple.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 08-25-2005 11:25 AM randman has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 57 of 59 (236796)
08-25-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jazzns
08-25-2005 11:39 AM


Re: Diagnosing a deeper problem.
You keep saying I don't understand what the theory is, so instead of taking me to task about supposedly not understanding it, how about telling me what this theory is that I supposedly am not understanding.
==========
What the heck do you think I and may others have been doing across hundreds of posts to you? Especially recently.
Well I see no hope for this conversation if you don't know why I'm asking the question.
You want to allow me the right to call the whole thing absurd but you don't even stop to consider how it might in fact be absurd, you just go right on with the evolutionist rationalizations of it all.
==========
Assuming too much. I got started in this debate trying to figure out what was right. I still continue that search waiting for someone to show me how modern scientific theory is absurd. The problem is, you have never done so because you are describing as absurd something completely different from modern scientific theory.
I am describing as absurd the millions of years of build-up explanation of the geological column based on its actual physical characteristics. That is "something completely different from modern scientific theory?"
I have no emotional investment in evolution or geology. I just want to know the truth and so far I have not only heard no truth from YECism but dishonesty regardless if it is intentional or not.
I absolutely have no idea what you think you are saying.
Well fine, spell out this theory you say I don't understand. I'll get back to you later.
========
Yea, that certainly motivates me to spend countless hours filling up this forum with a regurgitation of semester upon semester of my education. How about you start over, coax the admins to let you back into the science fora with the intent of readdressing one issue of interest to you. If you approach the situation with a little bit of humility I am sure there will be plenty of people lined up to answer your questions. Take a cue from TheLiteralist. Probably as staunch a YEC as you but came in here after some time bring up some issue that were actually much closer to a criticism of theories we are all at this forum to talk about. No one is asking you to be a geology whiz in a week but there is seriously an awesome knowlege base here on this forum to tap.
I haven't read the Literalist and don't know what you are talking about and have no hope of ever getting back into the science fora and have stopped caring because all I'd get over there is what I get over here anyway, only over there I'd also get periodic threats and suspensions on top of it. Why don't you address what I've actually said about why various claims are absurd? You must think you have but you haven't.
I cannot wait for the day that you post an actual criticism of OE or the ToE. I am hungry for it. Only by putting these issues to the fire will we even know the truth.
Well as long as you keep talking in this oblique way I'll never figure out what you are saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 11:39 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 1:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 08-29-2005 7:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 58 of 59 (236825)
08-25-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
08-25-2005 12:10 PM


Re: Diagnosing a deeper problem.
I am describing as absurd the millions of years of build-up explanation of the geological column based on its actual physical characteristics. That is "something completely different from modern scientific theory?"
The way you are describing it, yes it is something completely different from modern scientific theory. That much is obvious. You would think it obvious too if you had a foundation in the theory. Not to mention that you often even misidentify the physical characteristics but that is a different topic; maybe one good enough for a new thread with the intent to learn.
I absolutely have no idea what you think you are saying.
You said that I would not consider how OE and ToE might be absurd. I responded by telling you that I have no emotional investment in those theories and that I am perfectly willing to entertain criticism as long as it is criticism of the actual theory. The problem, and the reason for this thread, is that no real criticism has yet to be demonstrated and I think it is due to ignorance.
Why don't you address what I've actually said about why various claims are absurd? You must think you have but you haven't.
My invitation to you to participate in the GD topic is still open. But in order to understand why I consider your claims to be absurd you must understand the theory. I feel that I more then adequatly address your claims in that thread. If you feel otherwise then pick it back up and we can try again. My points raised are still standing there for anyone to see.
Well as long as you keep talking in this oblique way I'll never
figure out what you are saying.
I can't tell if you are trying to be insulting or not. It certainly seems that way and I feel a bit taken aback because here I am trying to extend a friendly hand. I want our discussions to be fruitful and intellectually stimulating. That is what I am saying. I just don't know any other way to say it better Faith. You need to raise your game and I think deep down you know it. The question still stands:
Before you can properly attack OE concepts don't you feel like you should understand them without necessary believing in them? If not then why not? If yes then is there any way that we can help you get to that point of understanding?
If you don't want to take it to the science threads then how about propose a learning forum?

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 12:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 59 of 59 (238214)
08-29-2005 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
08-25-2005 12:10 PM


Re: Diagnosing a deeper problem.
I saw you quote mine me, so I figured I should step in. Yes I did say that the grand canyon itself can have many different interpretations of formation. I'm not sure how many logical interpretations it could have, but for argument's sake lets say 1 million.
Now you take my statement at that, and then use it to bolster your case that one of those 1 million could in fact be the case. But that is self-delusion and taking my statement way out of context.
I could just as easily have said a single tree could allow for a zillion different scenarios for how the niverse came about. The point is one tree, just as one canyon, is NOT ENOUGH ON WHICH TO BASE A THEORY REGARDING THE FORMATION OF GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES.
Remember I was directly stating that you should pull your head out of your precious canyon and start looking at other evidence. It is other geology that you ALSO have to explain which starts whittling down those other million interpretations. Some completely destroy your YE scenario.
Keeping your head stuck in your Bible and that single canyon is as good as having done nothing at all. It is willful ignorance of the highest order.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 12:10 PM Faith 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