Fossil sorting for simple

Hi, Simple! I was trying to engage you in the Walt Brown's super-tectonics thread in order to point out a few qualities of EvC Forum.First, the science topic threads are intended for more serious discussion than was developing in that thread.Second, there are a set of Forum Guidelines that act sort of as rules of the road - mostly follow them most of the time and you'll do fine. We try not to overemphasize the guidelines, preferring to let discussion take a natural course, but they will often get applied when a discussion bogs down. The Walt Brown discussion had already passed that point, which is why I was trying to make sure I had your attention.Third, discussions of the sort you were trying to have, which was not a discussion or debate but more, for many of your posts, a jousting or mocking contest, are perfectly legitimate here, but they belong in the Free For All forum. Or perhaps the Coffee House forum.Hope to see you again sometime.--Percy

Hi, Simple!Could you please let me know that you're read Message 11? I have nothing more to add, I just want to make sure you have the information I was trying to provide. Thanks!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

I'd like to put the onus on the evolutionists to keep the thread from fragmenting into many tiny posts and to keep the discussion focused on the topic of flood sorting. It is important to first make sure Simple understands the points being made. Only those with the patience to repeatedly explain the same thing many times should participate in discussions with Simple. Participating in a game of "Let's pepper the message board" is strongly discouraged.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Hi, All!Now that it's morning, I want to reiterate my comments from last night, plus I want to add a little more.To the evolutionists: Moose has mentioned many times the downside of piling on. This thread is a nearly perfect illustration of the problems inherent when that happens. Discussion became fragmented because many people made the same point, but each in their own way, and the original points often became lost as posts became shorter and shorter. I just traced Mark's post back to see what the original point was and had to go back at least six messages before discovering it concerned cladistic correlations. This is no way to conduct a debate.Some of the best points were made early on but were never comprehended, and now they've become lost. I think a return to the early simple points is a good idea. Evolutionists should procede gently but persistently with these points until they are understood.To the Creationists, mostly Simple: I appreciate that you acknowledged and understood my points about the way discussion takes place here at EvC Forum. This thread resides in one of the science forums, and so discussion here should seriously address the topic. It helps a lot if you understand a post before replying to it. Understanding a point is not the same as agreeing with it. In fact, it is essential to understand a point if you're to successfully rebut it. As you read above, I'm encouraging evolutionists to persist with a particular point until you give an indication of understanding it, and only then move on to the next point.It may seem to you that I'm singling you out for special criticism, since I'm criticizing you for not understanding the posts you're replying to while I'm not doing that to the evolutionists, and you may therefore perhaps conclude that I am biased. I *am* an evolutionist, and I *do* believe in God. Please trust that I am simply going by what I see, and that's that the evolutionists are piling on, and that you haven't comprehended most of what you've read, plus you don't have the necessary background in which to assess the information anyway. It's like you need hooks on which to hang all the hats, but since you haven't built the house yet you have no walls to which to nail the hooks, and so you're left with a mass of unorganized hats sitting useless on the ground. It takes time to build the house and hang the hooks and organize the hats. It takes time to learn, and I'm urging you to slow down.Please understand that just because you don't understand the positions of the evolutionists doesn't mean that they are right and you are wrong. It just means that the replies you're currently offering don't offer too many signs of you having understood what you're replying to, and so most of the discussion to this point has been of you and the evolutionists talking past each other. It's this situation that I'd like to bring to an end.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Being curt and heavy handed with those unfamiliar with science is unlikely to be productive. I think these are the necessary qualitifications:

• Willing to repeat the same information as many times as necessary for the point to be understood.
• Responds to misconceptions gently.
• Understands that misinterpretations will sometimes appear willful, and even if they are takes it in stride.
• Ignores jabs and taunts and being treated disrespectfully.

Remember, you're discussing with people who do not share your science backgrounds, and in fact probably have had little exposure to science. Abusing them will not make them learn any faster - I'm sure most of us spent many years learning what we know, and we can't expect others to learn any faster than we did. Just because other people have spent their time and energy learning things other than science is not a license to treat them roughly.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator