Summations Only

Correction or no, there's nothing in your post that evinces any understanding of the science.Buz, part of the way that people who understand science are able to judge how well others understand it is in the way they employ scientific terminology - either appropriately, which indicates experience with and understanding of the underlying concepts, or inappropriately, which indicates that they're "just words" to the person using them, devoid of any meaning or context.So it has nothing to do with saying "macroevolution" when you meant "microevolution", if that was even the case; frankly, your "correction" seems more like a panicked attempt to guess your way into an accidentally accurate statement.But what we can all quite plainly see is that someone who says "relating to how the Crysper System applies the DNA factor" is someone who has no idea what any of those words mean. I had thought, at least, that you had some idea what "DNA" actually was but, based on the fact that you think DNA is a "factor" which is "applied" by CRISPR indicates that I was utterly mistaken about that.This isn't about how you're a creationist. This is about how, completely independent of that, you're a scientific illiterate. If an evolutionist said the same thing you did, he'd be equally lampooned. In fact, maybe you've noticed that like 90% of the posts from evolutionists around here are us correcting each other's scientific misunderstandings. Maybe you've noticed how frequently that happens to me and I have a degree in biochemistry. There's no "level of being taken seriously" where you get to say "relating to how the Crysper System applies the DNA factor" and have anybody pretend that that statement contains scientific meaning. Even Percy doesn't get to do that.

No, what this is an example of is how you don't understand anything of what is being said to you.None of the messages you're referring to pertain to "macro, micro." They're all in reference, as I said, to

quote:

---

Not sure, but likely relating to how the Crysper System applies the DNA factor

---

and how this utterance is so devoid of understanding of the terms used that it's pretty stark evidence that you not only have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea of what anybody is ever talking about.Nobody cared that you corrected "macroevolution" to "microevolution" because what you posted is nonsensical with either word. No, that's incorrect. A falsehood. A "Buz fact", if you will. My message was very clear about where you had it wrong, and you've not replied to it. No, you don't. In the 9 years since I first raised the objection you've not even made an effort to address the critical flaw I identified in your supposed "Biblical prophecies." What you do is assert and repeat.

Quoted as illustrative of my point - your remarks never provide any indication that you know what you're talking about. (The Ford you're referring to is the Model T, and the brand of Japanese luxury cars you're thinking of is Lexus.)I'm sure you feel like these corrections are nit-picking, but the problem is that you can't be relied upon to get it right even when it does matter.

I think you drastically overestimate our regard for you. I feel like I can speak for most of us when I tell you that we just don't think about you enough to hate you. The boot does not hate the ant, to paraphrase a recent movie.It's pity, not hatred. You need to adjust your emotional radar. We're not angry with you; we're saddened by you.

If I said that the Catholic sex abuse scandal had convinced me there was no god, would that be evidence that the purpose of Catholic sex abuse had been to advance atheism?Isn't it possible that people can be convinced that there's no god simply by the things that are true about the universe because there's no god, not because the expression of those truths is an agenda to turn people against god?

Couldn't someone be convinced of that by the fact that three-dimensional spacetime is all that there's evidence for? And Second-Day Adventist Brain-in-Jars believe that there's even less - substantially less - to reality. If you believe that it's the responsibility of evidence not to contradict belief, then you've turned the relationship between evidence and belief on its head. So, let me get this straight - your position is that observable reality is a conspiracy to turn people against God?

That's an inappropriate relationship to evidence, and most importantly, an insupportable one. Evidence is convincing precisely because it's apparent both to those who want to see it, and those who don't. Imagine a private detective holding out photos to a woman of her cheating husband - whether or not she wants to see them, they're devastating simply because they're such convincing proof of infidelity. And regardless of whether the woman refuses to look at them, the evidence will continue to mount, to a point where it just can't be ignored. Human beings can't help but see what is real, even if its to their detriment. Pretending that the evidence isn't evidence just isn't a pose that can be maintained. I'm not familiar with any model of the moon's origin that involves an "explosion." You mean like these? Some details, yes. Other details are contradicted. Both are irrelevant to evolution, or to the veracity of the Bible in regards to its other claims; Verona is a real city in Italy (I've been there) but it's mention doesn't make Romeo and Juliet any less a work of fiction. All that science does is make efforts to explain what has been observed.

Or someone uneducated in photo manipulation, but with a reason to discredit the evidence - the husband, let's say - could make an accusation of manipulation that was unfounded. Hey, anything could have happened in that motel room with that woman. Getting to the bottom of this situation, or any other - getting to the truth - is going to require careful examination of the evidence. Simply tossing out the very idea of evidence because it leads you to things you'd prefer not to believe is an act every bit as foolish, and self-harming, as the wife who refuses to credit her own "lyin' eyes." This is certainly the first instinct of motivated reasoning. It's a known cognitive bias, you're right. Humans are far from perfect - not only do we tend to jump to conclusions and practice confirmation bias, we lie, we cheat, we harm each other, and we steal and act selfishly. All humans suffer from these temptations - you would describe it as all humans being in a fallen state, but it's the same idea in different words - and only by conscious commitment to a code of conduct can we restrain these negative impulses.Similarly, one can restrain the impulse to jump to conclusions and seek only confirmatory evidence. One can adopt an ethos of discovery and knowledge generation that, courageously, leads one to base one's conclusions on the evidence regardless of what conclusions one would prefer to be true. We call this ethos "the scientific method", and it's the sole reason that we, as humans, can know anything at all. You've made a very good case why this method is so uniquely trustworthy.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.