Summations Only

It is obvious that I am quite despised here. My point of view obviously rubs people the wrong way on this site. I could have an IQ of 145 and people would still consider me "forrest gump" mentality because of my views. I do not want to stay in a place where my presence is not welcome.

I don't deny any facts that i am sure are facts. You have to convince me they are facts before I will believe them. You say the age of the earth is a fact. I read a bit of your age correlations paper. I am not convinced about the climate correlations in regards to the devils hole in nevada where there is a stalagtite being investigated. I am not convince oxygen and carbon isotopic ratios are good proxies for paleoclimate. I feel they are rough estimates at best. What exactly do you call a good correlation? But, lets say you are correct and they all correlate well. If all radiometric decay was greater in the past and every isotope has had its decay rate drop off at exactly the same rate as each other, then something that happened 570,000 radiometric years ago could have happened 25,000 years ago in reality, and it would still show the same correlations.

I am not a loon. I will not be giving any show. But this is prime evidence of what I was talking about. I don't ridicule anyone unless I despise them. I don't know why you would be any different.

This is the crux of my problem on this board. I am here to talk about my ideas about various issues that science has supposedly settled. It is called brainstorming. I suppose other people call it the daydreams of a lunatic. It seems that is the prevailing opinion here. I make no bones about the fact that I believe God created the universe and did it in any way that was planned and guided by intelligence. That drives my "day dreaming" about new ideas in regard to supposedly settled issues.When you ask for evidence for my claims, I am not sure what I could possibly do to satisfy your demand. I don't think anything I could come up with would satisfy your criteria for evidence. What am I supposed to do then? Am I supposed to just shutup? I don't even agree with most people here about what is true science, so that means I will never be talking "science" here to anyone's satisfaction. I have rough models about what really happened, and they are ideas and that is all. They seem like possibilities to me. I feel like it is up to you guys to show me why my possibilities are impossibilities indeed. I rarely ever see that. What I do see is a demand for evidence for my claims. My evidence is the facts of what we observe in nature. I will never give you evidence in terms of "acceptable science". I don't agree with how "acceptable science" came to their conclusions. This drives you people crazy I know. I am not going to change however. I am never going to do "science" by the way you people define "science". Don't get yourself all worked up trying to get me to either. Don't try ridiculing me either to try and do things your way. It only drives me away and tempts me to go on a blue cursing streak, or just give up and walk away.

I understand wanting to tear holes in the ideas of others . That isn't what I see many hear doing however. I see downright hostility expressed in the most ugly sarcasm and ridicule possible. I see no need for this type of attitude. If that is science, then scientists are a bunch of hateful , insecure assholes.

I guess part of the problem is that I didn't realize that there were so many professional scientists on this site. I didn't realize I was going through an adversarial review process. I just thought it was a bunch of hateful mocking by intense haters of fundamentalist christians. I see that on theological sites and in real life. What I saw here was no different. I will give your adversarial posts a closer look to see if they are indeed purely scientific adversarial reviews indeed. Right now, it just seems like ridicule and piling on for the pure enjoyment of it. I don't mean everyone, especially folks like taq, and trixie, and rahvin. You will have to excuse me; I am not a professional scientist. Not yet at least. I will have a geology degree by may 2014, and then will hopefully be going to graduate school. Even by then, I will be hopelessly behind most folks on this forum.

I am not convinced oxygen and carbon isotopic ratios are good proxies for paleoclimate. This is typical of what I was referring to. What position? What do you mean by evidence. I don't even have any idea of how to respond to such a request. I simply do not see why oxygen and carbon isotopic ratios are good proxies for paleoclimate. I am looking to be educated. If it is such a slam dunk, it should be easy to show why they are.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

No, I don't. You have misunderstood me. Sure, but I haven't stated that my opinions are facts; you have. I agree, but I haven't asked anyone to do that yet. I protest that you want evidence when I am simply bringing up my ideas for discussion and hashing out. It won't I agree, but you are setting up a strawman of a problem that doesn't exist.

This is what I am talking about. Why did you have to say I was the lowest common denominator? That has nothing to do with adversarial science. It is just an insult anybody could do.

No. I don't wish to chit chat about the weather etc. I want to talk in the science threads because that is what I want to talk about. I still don't understand why I have to have evidence when "evidence" means I can only substantiate my claims with stuff you guys agree with. Sorry. NO can do.

This made a lot of sense. One thing I have to make clear though is this. I have a lot of confidence in what I believe, not based on science, but my faith in God. I don't have much faith in science. I am not trying to be arrogant. I am here merely to discuss my ideas. I am not going to wait for an enormous time, while I thoroughly research an issue or write a research paper of my own documented with references before I dare utter an opinion on this board. I am thinking out loud for Christ's sake. I am not saying I know I am right from a scientific point of view. If I didn't feel confident in my beliefs I would not have any beliefs. What is it you people want from me? ... To say that I don't believe anything until I have solid scientific evidence to back up what I believe? If my list of beliefs were restricted to what had solid scientific evidence for it, I would not believe anything. The reason for that is that I don't think any evidence is completely solid and I am suspicious of any evidence that comes from somebody who is an strong atheist as most scientists are.

I am not in a lab. Neither are you when you are debating on a forum. How does either of us possible come up with evidence?

I would offer evidence if I had a clue what that would look like on a discussion board. I have ideas and I am discussing them with you. When you ask for evidence, I don't have the faintest idea of how to provide it.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

That was very helpful and interesting. Here is one point I want to respond to though: The creationists who bring up an old topic don't realize it has been repeatedly brought up and supposedly debunked. It is freshly new to them. Creationists, for the most part, get enthusiastic about an idea they think will finally seriously undercut "evolutionistic philosophy". They will excitedly bring it up in a forum such as this and then face ferocious, mocking and ridicule. They don't even realize how they have been debunked. They can't realize it because they don't have the slightest idea of what the opposing arguments are. They go away angry and despising atheists and what passes for scientists and probably never attempt to engage them again. This is how you keep getting new arrivals on a constant basis with the same old arguments. They don't know their fellow christians have been down the same road with the same argument. All they know from their fellow christians is that atheists and most scientists are assholes and act hatefully when their ideas are presented for debate. No commonality is every reached. Distrust of science and scientists grows and so they never even get started on the road to learning what everybody on this board already knows. All that is left is distrust and enmity. I don't think this chasm will ever be breached. A christian is going to believe what they do regardless of what you present to them. This isn't stupidity to them. It is the only sane way of living that they know of. They are not going to let you take away their faith at all costs, and so their will be a lot of emotion involved and a lot of distrust involved.

A lot of times, I don't know where that evidence is , if there is any. I just have an idea that I want to discuss. I would never post anything if I had to wait until i found the so called evidence on the web for my position.