Faith's Participation in EvC

Interacting with Faith is like interacting with a brick wall.Which is a waste of time if you're looking fora good game of tennis. But it has its uses in racquetball.Faith fails at debate because she doesn't do it. She preaches unto you The Gospel According to Faith and deep-sixes every fact she finds inconvenient. By her own account this amounts to almost any data she didn't acquire from her Sunday School teacher.But for that reason Faith makes a fine Exhibit A. You always know what she will say, what she will deny, and how martyred she will act while doing both.And she'll be there. She might have egg all over her face from yesterday's rout of her super-genome hypothesis. Still, you know when you tune in to EvC today she'll be back on those boards, looking for another omelette. She's like Wile E Coyote: one fatal plunge after another--yet always back for another self-inflicted beating, thinking this time the Road Runner will finally get his. She's like the Timex watch that takes its licking and keeps on ticking--except that her clock doesn't tick because it's frozen at midnight YEC Standard Time.The mistake is trying to have a conversation with something so static. You can't. A conversation involves listening. A wall dares not do this. It might soften, and then it wouldn't be like a wall anymore. It would be more like a mobile, pliable, flesh-and-blood normal person. Walls don't have time to be human. They have contents to protect, boundaries to define. 'Fallible' is not something a wall can afford to be.I understand the wish for more open human interactions. But I think it's asking for more than Faith can give you.My advice is to enjoy your conversations with the people who really are here for a conversation. View the wall as a backdrop--part of the furniture--and continue your discussion. Or treat it as an opportunity. Bounce a few ideas off of it, let others do the same. Try different angles, watch the spins, perfect your game.The wall doesn't move. It's perfect for the job._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity, typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The same one you did--as we're on the same side in this discussion.The Rock of Ages, surely.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Don't mention it. I'd happily do it again in the same words. Take heart, Faith. You are accomplishing more good here than you know.For one thing, all you have to do is rhyme all this self-pity to have a great start on a new opera libretto. (The best melodies are for martyred divas.)But would you mind satisfying my curiosity about something?Is it possible--I'm not saying likely, mind you, I'm saying maybe just possible--that in any way or at any time you might possibly have played the smallest part in contributing to your own social problems?I'm just wondering. I've never seen you acknowledge that possibility. Other people do it but never you.It may be that at bottom your difficulty is not really an evo-creo thing. It might have more to do with the understandings people have with each other, with their willingness to supply requested information and listen in good faith and try to understand, and with their expectation that this effort will be reciprocated. It might have something to do with their feelings of betrayal when a contract they thought was mutual is not honored, or even acknowledged.Just a suggestion. Something to consider.Another question. You mention a feeling of having so much 'against' you that it seems pointless to post the same things day after day. Have you given serious consideration to every reason you might be feeling this way?_

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Here is an example, Faith, of how you end up in predicaments like the one that is the subject of this board. This statement is not true. The hypothesis has yet to be explored thoroughly by you. It has been explored very thoroughly by others. It stands falsified by physical evidence.You know this. The news was delivered to you personally by an immediate member of Adam and Eve's family. Oetzi the Iceman.Oetzi is a Bronze-Age mummy dating from the time you say Adam lived. The find provided a treasure trove of genetic data--human, zoological and botanical.And not one super-enriched genome in the lot.Your hypothesis has failed to meet the key test of a valid theory: the ability to predict outcomes.Here's the thread where you got the news from Oetzi. It's a short one:
Looking for the super-genome--and it ain't been foundUpon learning of the remains of an actual person from the age of Adam, you immediately denied the age of the find. But early in the going you were at least Mensch enough to see the implications and say this:

quote:

---

Faith (Message 3):

​

Well, the idea of the super genome is simply the most likely interpretation based on what we know from the Bible, but it could of course be wrong and need rethinking.

---

A glimpse of reality being considered. Something in your outlook resembling uncertainty, leaving a question open. Very healthy, very human. Brava.But only a glimpse. After that you kicked up a flurry of Silly Sand and disappeared.Here's my favorite moment of denial:

quote:

---

Faith (Message 13):

​

But there is no reason to believe he is a contemporary of Adam. Maybe a few hundred years old or a couple thousand, but no way to know[...]

---

You suggest here that Oetzi the Iceman is really more credible as a contemporary of Mozart than as a man from the Bronze Age. This, in a thread where you take the scientists to task for not considering the evidence!Apparently we need more radiocarbon tests on Oetzi's riding coat, powdered wig, and silk stockings...Even more strange is your insistence that physical evidence offers 'no way to know' anything. You may believe that, but the premise is (to put it mildly) not a scientific one.Another Kodak moment: your decree that dating methods are worthless, then your admission in the next breath that you lack any competence to say this.

quote:

---

Faith (Message 19):

​

I don't accept carbon dating, never have. It proves nothing. I have said, however, that I don't understand it well enough to discuss it and will concede the point when the discussion gets technical.

---

A bit of a bust, rhetorically as well as rationally.Equinox gave a good description of the dating methods and why in this case the date evidence is particularly strong. You had already conceded the point, though, as you say above.You haven't mentioned Oetzi since. And now you're back to old habits. You trot out your pet idea as if nothing ever happened to it and attribute your own lack of investigation to others: Why are you trying to bury Oetzi again? He's just the messenger. That's no way to treat a guy you really do know from Adam.You don't have to like the news he delivered. But you said it yourself: 'It could of course be wrong and need rethinking.'Your super-genome hypothesis was testable. Today it stands falsified by all the relevant physical evidence._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Touchup.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Title.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

CK writes: I'm glad you mentioned this, CK. The first thing that impressed me about this forum was the number of people with science expertise who share it, gratis. They do this even for those who profoundly misunderstand science, are largely ignorant of its findings, and who have been taught to scorn the work they do not understand.Most scientists take a different attitude. They do their research, share their findings with those they know to be interested, and let the rest stay ignorant. They take the attitude that the fundamentalist mind is like soup in a bad restaurant. It's best to leave it unstirred.We are fortunate to have scientists here who are more generous, and patient. They share the knowledge they have in the spirit that it really does belong to everyone. They know individuals have been badly taught and misinformed. They do what they can.I am learning a lot from our scientists. We owe them our gratitude.We need to keep this resource at EvC. I don't think we face the choice at the moment, but if it ever came about that we had to choose between those who share real information over people and those who act out martyr fantasies, I hope we won't hesistate to throw the martyrs overboard. You have to keep the people who bring in the resources. And the martyrs won't mind the treatment. Rejection is their raison d'etre anyway.We don't face this choice now, apparently. Those who bring in resources seem willing to tolerate a few energy sinks. People here seem to be saying that firm regulation of the science boards is in order to keep that department functioning. As for the rest, as I say, Faith's act is so monotonous that it becomes part of the furniture after a while. People figure it out.I do request this: if someone is just going to repeat bare assertions over and over, on any thread, I hope Admins will be firm about getting them to engage in real debate or pull the plug. One of the strengths of the e-mail format is that everyone gets their say. You can't filibuster or shout anyone down on e-mail. But EvC does have overall posting limits on threads. Burning up the count with multiple posts that say the same thing is one way to effect a filibuster. We need to be attentive to this abuse of the system._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.