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.

Thread copied here from the Whether to leave this forum or not thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Despised - no.People disagree with some of what you post, particularly when what you post is factually wrong. But there is nothing personal in disagreeing with what you post. As far as I can tell, nobody here despises you.

but I really doubt anyone here despises you or even knows you.So far I cannot even remember you promoting an idea or position worthy of despite.There are some positions which will be refuted and rejected, often based on multiple lines of evidence and so positions like Young Earth or that there was a Biblical Flood or Intelligent Design or Creationism only have a chance of gaining any traction if you can present evidence in support of that position that stands up to rigid scrutiny.To make any headway in one of those positions you would have to present evidence that no one in the last 150 or more years has yet presented.If you could present a model/method (as one example) that explains how the asserted designer influences the life we see around us that better explains what is seen than the Theory of Evolution, then I assure you that folk here, while skeptical, would be persuaded to adopt that explanation. But it is the content, not the source of that explanation that would be tested and if it stands up to examination, then it would replace the current Theory of Evolution.If you want to support the Biblical Flood stories as factual, then you would need to explain the mechanisms that hid all the evidence that MUST be there if the flood happened as described in the stories.It is not a matter of IQ, it is a matter of science.

I wouldn't say you're despised. As was pointed out, we don't know you. When we disagree with your points, it really is nothing personal. It's science and the way that science works. We all try to pick holes in other people's ideas, it's how science works - falsifiability.I always welcome attempts to pick holes in my opinions because it helps me to learn, to maybe change or refine my opinions and thus know more about a subject that fascinates me, namely science.It can be hard when you are told that many of your preconceived ideas don't hold water or that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of something, but that's how we all learn. So don't think you're despised because people disagree with you. Don't think you're despised at all because you're not.Stick around and learn, just like all of us on here learn every day from posters who are experts in fields we know nothing about. As a molecular biologist, I've learned so much about cosmology from our resident cosmologists, stuff that I'd never have had an opportunity to find out about if it wasn't for this forum.

Hi foreveryoung, Not by me. In fact I wouldn't mind your participation on a couple threads Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
Speciation + Evolution = More Diversity
Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process
and
How "novel" features evolve when that gets promoted What rubs people the wrong way is when you say things they know are false, and particularly if you don't appear willing to learn where you are wrong.I've learned a lot on this forum, and as a result have changed my opinions on a number of issues, but facts remain facts, and denial of facts can be a problem. Such as denial of the age of the earth:see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1Well now your presence is requested in a couple of places.Enjoy.

I've asked a similar question myself, but for different reasons.It seems like the really interesting crop of loons left this place a long time ago and we just don't get any more enjoyable topics started on relevant subjects. Instead, we have a regular drive-by of one crazy creo after another spouting nonsense that we've all heard a billion times (but that they think is the golden ticket to disproving Evil-ution and vindicating their pathetic little god-god). Along with these are the same-old discussions on women's right issues (birth control, right to abortion, etc.) which are admittedly important from a societal standpoint but just don't really make for good discussion (I mean the people who argue against these things are so ridiculous as to not even be worthy of replying to, and the people who argue for these things get old to read since the arguments are so straightforward and simple).I do like political issues, and that is one of the nicer things to discuss around here, since the occasionally good topic is always a satisfying thread given the intelligence of EvC members. I also like the Biblical/religious discussions along with some Creationist topics. But it seems like a lot of the topics around here lately are just dead-horse-beating fests.But I guess, foreveryoung, that is where you come in. You have the chance to become one of those interesting loons that brings us all out of the teasing-presidential-candidates-who-share-their-name-with-anal-sex-discharge doldrums. So please don't go.Grab yourself a comfy hat and some pretty shoes and give us all a show to rememberwe're waiting.Jon

Foreveryoung, debate is all about despised/opposing POVs. What do you expect, for your POVs to be compatible with all? If you don't think your POV is powerful enough to defend, better not debate it in any fora.I agree with Razd and Trixie that my opponents have taught me a lot here over the years, not only about their POVs but about my own, in that their challenges has required me to examine my own so as to ascertain whether it stands up to the test.

You are confusing disagreement with being despised. They are two very different things. The point of view that you can make any claim you want without any evidence to back it up does rub people the wrong way. Why shouldn't it? There is an easy cure for this one. Start with evidence and move towards your conclusion. Your presence is more than welcome. What is not welcomed are claims that are devoid of evidence within the Science fora.

if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.I have no idea who you are, but you come off as a crybaby. who cares what these nerds around here think of you?They probably wish I would quit, but even if I felt I was going too, I wouldn't come on here and whine my ass off.good riddance

Well said, Buz. I think a phrase you might recognize is "iron sharpening iron"?This notion of one's ideas and positions emerging from the scrap battle-tested, tempered, and sharpened is the very reason for debate. It's not to win or lose; it's to fight and in doing so, have one's ideas either withstand the onslaught or be cast aside.It's a critical component of the scientific method. Most people are aware that the scientific method is some combination of "Observation, Hypothesis forming, Experimentation, Conclusion, Communication." Perhaps few are aware that the last step - communicating your results - is the most important step, because that's when your ideas are subject to the withering criticism and scorn of the scientific community.I think a lot of people don't know that about science - that peer-review is an adversarial process. I think creationists in particular misinterpret scientific skepticism of their submissions as innish rejection of opposing viewpoints, but evolutionists get treated this way, too. I wish I could show you some of the comments on some of my wife's papers! It's the default mode of the peer-review system - you submit the result of perhaps a decade of your life's work, 4-6 people you've never met tell you how terrible it is, what a bad researcher you must be, ask questions you don't have any answers to, make imprecations against your mother's sexual habits, give you 200 impossible and inconsistent demands for your next resubmission, and so on. That's if you're lucky. If you're unlucky they take one look at your work and tell you "thanks, but no thanks." If you're extremely lucky they give you 90 days to fix all the problems with your work and resubmit, and then you get to go through it all again.Foreveryoung is upset that his ideas were presented to an audience that turned out to be hostile when it wasn't completely disinterested. I think most people are surprised to find out that that's par for the course for scientists. Easy acceptance of ideas is what you want to be suspicious of.

There is a bit of hyperbole in the above quote, but the sentiment is dead on. I have been to conferences where young postdocs have left the podium in tears after their presentation was ripped to shreds. Science is not for the weak of heart, that is for sure. To be quite frank, creationists are treated with kid's gloves on this site compared to how they would be treated in a real scientific arena.The funny part is that scientists WANT IT TO BE THIS WAY. This is how we prefer it. Every hypothesis has to pass a trial by fire. This is very different from the environment that creationists are coming from where ideas are not challenged as long as they ahdere to orthodoxy. In science, there are no sacred cows. Every idea is up for debate. There are no such things as dangerous questions in science. Not so for religion. Galileo found that out the hard way.

If you had not ended that message with "good riddance", I would have given your post a cheer. I agree with most of what you said, except that last line.

The reason for the adversarial process should be clear: only false ideas can be destroyed by accurate evidence. If you're right, no asshole with a doctorate will ever be able to falsify your model, and that's the point. That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be. It's the only way we can grow stronger in our knowledge of the world around us.But despite the fact that we tend to be hypercritical around here, I'm sorry that foreveryoung feels like such an outcast. I see that his status says he's now an "inactive member," and I hope he changes his mind and comes back.

I am not aggravated by your point of view.I think you are wrong about some scientific things, and I'll say so. But I've enjoyed your participation here.Some of your posts have generated some really excellent discussion about science. For example, your questions about radioactive decay rates led to one of the more enjoyable physics discussions here. Very few posters defending young earth creationism ever accomplish something like that.I hope you'll change your mind and stay.Besides all that, wasn't Forest Gump actually very smart?