Comparitive delusions

I don't see that there's anything to discuss here, but I suppose you all need a special opportunity to rant against us ignorant mean creos from time to time.But I think you took my post out of context. Sorry it upset you so but I thought the context should have made it clear I'm talking about something very specific and I'm not accusing anyone of intentional deception either.It happened to occur in some posts on the Grand Canyon thread so I took the opportunity to try to define it. It's something that's bugged me for years, but usually in the context of evolutionist presentations more than geology. It just happens to occur there too.But apparently you can't see a problem with it so it was a futile hope on my part that it might be appreciated.Here's the original post just for the record, from the Grand Canyon threadwhich is a reply to a post of yours.Peace.

What you are saying makes no sense. My reaction to the way people are customarily presented with unprovable conjecture in the supposed ancient scenarios of the ToE and OE is something that's bugged me all the way back before I was a Christian. Mostly the ToE where I would try to track down the evidence for some scenario or another, in layman's terms of course, and couldn't.I haven't accused anyone of evil motives -- or delusion or anything else. Oh my mistake -- I did accuse you of delusion about how creationists are the ones guilty of fantasies etc. So you are delusional that we are delusional. That's true.That's my statement. There is no more. It has nothing whatever to do with my religious beliefs and there's no point in arguing with you about all that anyway, as you clearly are not open to any of it and it's just a distraction from the point I wanted to make.Peace.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-17-2006 08:22 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-17-2006 08:24 AM

I couldn't even FIND any evidence for YEARS. And that was in the days when I BELIEVED in evolution. All you'd get was these prepackaged scenarios. So many millions of years ago such and such a landscape prevailed and such and such creatures roamed sort of thing. Not a shred of evidence.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-17-2006 09:00 AM

Oh believe me I'm giving up complaining. Waste of breath.

I'm sorry too, jar, that you find it hard to believe.

Oh for crying out loud. My objection was very very simple. I found examples in some posts on the other thread WHICH I GAVE AS MY EVIDENCE, of statements about past scenarios presented as if they were fact. The evidence is there. I started out with the evidence.This is common. There is nothing unusual about it. It doesn't mean those who believe these stories don't have what they consider to be evidence for it all, it just means that they present it that way, without the evidence, and tend to present it MORE that way to the poor layman who has no way to question it.Clever to demand that the poor layman become a scientist in order to protect himself against possibly false information which is really no more than propaganda.And again, I'm sure this is nobody's fault. Scientists think they are simply presenting the truth and they think there's plenty of evidence for it and that the layman can just take it as they give it.

I QUOTED A NUMBER OF POSTS AT LENGTH IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NECESSARY DISTINCTIONS. THEY ARE CLEAR. THERE IS NO POINT IN GIVING FURTHER PROOF AS NOTHING I SAY IS EVER ACCEPTED BY ANYBODY. KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN. I'VE EXPERIENCED THIS A LOT. DISBELIEVING ME ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS CALLING ME A LOT WORSE THAN DELUSIONAL, BUT THAT DOESN'T COUNT, DOES IT. YOU GUYS MANAGE TO GET EVERYTHING SO WRONG ABOUT MY MOTIVES AND WHAT I'M SAYING THE WHOLE THING HERE IS RIDICULOUS.

This has nothing to do with my God. It is simply a fact that you can't KNOW the age with such certainty and it is self-deceptive to call it a fact. Thank you for confirming that what I observed is actually a reality, and not just my own misreading. Again, proof that it is science itself that has lost its bearings, if it can call an interpretive scheme a fact. Mountain building event is an interpretation, not a fact. I assume that folding and metamorphosis have reocgnizable physical properties that can be observed and are therefore, although also interprettive to some extent, more deserving of the term "fact." Mountain building however has never been observed and can ONLY be an interpretation.No wonder everybody had such a problem with my descriptions. I guess I'm really dumb to think it was so obvious. What I've observed isn't any accident, it's an unfortunate description of what science is actually doing, confusing fact with interpretation. How sad. Well, thanks for your post. At least now I understand the reaction everybody was having. Nobody knows anything about any "sea" -- the FACTS in the case have to do with water-laid down sediments, but what the water conditions were cannot be known with such certainty. The interpretation assumes that this sediment was created and laid down where it was found. This is not necessarily the case. It could have been transported already formed. Anything about a "depositional setting" is an interpretation. The "points to" certainly indicates the evidence believed to support the interpretation but it's still only an interpretation. Such an interpretation, while consistent enough with Flood theory to be useful to Floodists, is used in such a way as to disqualify a Flood explanation. Again, it assumes that the layer was created or formed and laid down where it was found.And so on. Don't have the patience to work my way through all of this.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 10:19 PM

I made my case in my first posts of the facts v interpretation thread. I consider it made. There is nothing more to say. Apparently you all don't see what I see in it. Way it goes. Ciao.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2006 12:13 PM

Wrong words, sorry. That's all it is. Mountain building has NEVER been LITERALLY "observed" to occur, obviously, but there is very very good reason to believe that it has occurred from studying existent mountain ranges and the surrounding terrain. I shouldn't have used the term "observed" in that context, since it causes confusion, but I didn't mean it literally in that context either.But you can't use mountain building as the explanation for particular stresses, say, that you see in a rock that is nowhere near a mountain range, just because its stresses may resemble the stresses you see in rocks that are part of a mountain range, because in this case you are having to make up the whole thing from scratch, make it up from the look of the rock and nothing else, and you are guessing about this one time ancient event that may have left no trace of itself otherwise.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2006 05:10 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2006 05:11 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2006 05:12 PM

Fine, then I didn't misuse the term in that context.In the other context, where there is currently no existent mountain range, but one is being postulated to have existed millions of years ago as the explanation for certain observed phenomena in some rocks today, I can't see any justification for treating such a scenario as anywhere near a fact.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2006 05:18 PM

As I already said, I had this impression about how interpretation is treated as fact in relation to the ToE and OE long before I was a Christian. But I guess I can say it all I want and you will ignore it.

My assertions were backed up in the giving of all those examples at the start of the fact v interpretation thread. That's all there is, there ain't no more.

You accused me of having the opinions I have based on my religious beliefs. That is false. That's all I wanted to say.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2006 08:33 AM

What I'm telling you is that what I pointed out in the examples given already covers everything I wanted to say. It's right there, it didn't require any interpretation from me. I believe I demonstrated the case sufficiently for my purposes. I didn't suggest that it was "damning," that's your reading of it. I myself suppose there are reasonable explanations for it, although it does bug me and has always bugged me. But if it IS damning, as so many of you seem to believe, then perhaps it should be taken more seriously than it is being taken. Again, what you see is what you get. I didn't add anything or interpret anything.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2006 01:17 PM