Faith, you ignorant ... person. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. Brains aren't everything. In your case they're nothing. I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works. Calling you an idiot would be an insult to all the stupid people.
The site I'm looking at has about 70 more. I'll save them for later.
quote: I want to answer this but for the moment will only say that I gather my "ignorance" is embodied in having a view of things you disagree with, as I supposed, and in your aggressive misinterpretations of what I have in mind.
Ah, goalpost-moving, falsehoods and false accusations.
quote: I say the strata are straight and flat and you tell me I'm ignorant of phenomena such as the Temple Butte limestone, which is untrue, it just doesn't apply to the current statement
Of course you miss the fact that it makes a nonsense of your idea that the strata are “pure” but you ignore that. And how can your claim of flatness stand - or your claim that there is no erosion in between the strata when the Temple Butte Limestone is filling ancient valleys ?
quote: AND I can answer it and have answered it many times.
You can make up excuses - but even setting aside the question of whether your excuses make sense you don’t have or look for evidence to support your excuses. Another criticism vindicated.
quote: Thanks for the examples, though it gets tyresome to be told I'm ignorant when such examples are the reason for it and all you mean about what I need to learn is YOUR interpretation of those examples.
You mean that it is tiresome to be proven wrong so easily. But that is your problem for making claims that are so easily seen to be false. A lesson that you obviously haven’t learned since you end with yet another obviously us falsehood.
It is a fact that the Temple Butte Limestone is not flat, and that it fills the paleovalleys.
It is a fact that the Temple Butte Limestone is not purely one type of sediment. It isn’t even one sort of rock, and the dolomites contain sand, too.
It is a fact that the rock sequences typical of transgression and regression are merely examples of Walther’s law. It is a fact that a Flood transporting large amounts of sediment in very little time should not produce the same outcome as gradual changes in sea level (you would be the first to say so if it was convenient). Surely even you can see that the Flood would be more like a hurricane than a slow change over centuries or millennia - if it covered even the mountains in forty days, low-***** coastal regions would surely be underwater very quickly.
It is a fact that you often make claims which would need numerical justification, yet you rarely, if ever, have the numbers to hand.
I could go on, but none of these are interpretation.
She should, since I pointed it to her and then again to Thuggee. She completely ignored your message, along with Percy's more detailed reply.
She falsely claims innocence. There are a great many ways that we could describe her, but "innocent" is something that she is the furthest from being. Especially considering her highly deliberate trolling of PaulK yesterday in this topic.
Her "Christian witness" speaks volumes about why her particular religion (not to be confused with actual Christian doctrine) is so evil and needs to die out as soon as possible for the good of Mankind.
These diversions into discussing you are fine because EvC has always permitted diversions as long as they don't threaten to take over a thread, but I continue to advise that you stop making claims about yourself because people are allowed to respond to those claims. If you cease participating in this side discussion then it will die out, and as long as you're careful not to introduce yourself as a topic again that should be the end of it.
As a result I don't pay any attention at all to anybody else's point of view except now and then to identify a concept I know I'm going to have to deal with eventually. But it's true I don't pay attention to anybody's posts any more and the longer they are the less I can put my mind to them.
You're confessing that this behavior is deliberate, that it isn't just the way your mind works but that you're doing it on purpose. That's reprehensible, despicable, and unChristian.
I absolutely cannot even read Percy's posts any more, they are nothing but complaints about me.
Why do you constantly say things that aren't true and that can be proven not true? For instance, most of my posts to you in this thread have been about topic:
Further encouragement to Faith to not make herself the topic of discussion
Summarizing, 16 out of my 26 messages posted to you were about the topic. Of those 26 messages, you responded to only 8, and most of them were either very brief (a sentence or two) or ignored what I said and simply restated your own beliefs.
Obviously your claim that I post nothing but complaints about you is false. Making false claims is something you do constantly, even about yourself. My 10 off-topic messages were replies to your messages where you made false claims about yourself.
All true, yes, but as long as my creationist view is treated like trash,...
In post after post over many years people have examined your arguments and provided detailed feedback. Your response has been to spit in their faces by ignoring or dismissing their responses.
I'm getting barraged by hundreds of topics, all without even a nod of slight approval to anything I've said.
If someone claimed the Earth is flat, how much of a "nod of slight approval" do you think they deserve? Many of your errors are just as severe. Giving any indication of approval at all would be crazy.
I suppose that doesn't suffice to justify my ignoring others but I can't do anything else.
What do you think the normal human response is to having their significant efforts ignored or dismissed?
Now this post was an attempt to be clear and honest,...
Yes, you have been clear and honest, about being well aware that you're treating people like shit. People do not normally react well to being treated so poorly, with the result that you are the cause of the very treatment you complain so much about.
...but I've written such posts many times in the past and they just get trashed too.
Critical analysis of your arguments and ideas is not in any way the same as trashing something.
So there's maybe no way to say anything at all, and I need to go elsewhere to work on my creationist views.
If the creation view is correct then the evidence will say so. What we've seen from you during your entire period of participation is severe deficits in comprehension of even the most basic scientific concepts, in essence displaying a profound ignorance of how the world works.
You can certainly rectify this personally painful situation by acknowledging that the science borne of hundreds of years of study by literally millions of minds each checking, discarding and modifying the body of fact are, in actuality, not demons out to destroy your god and that the knowledge you seek to reject is factual with conclusions based in logic and reflect reality.
You own intransigents is what is hurting you here.
And by the way, this started with my saying that although everybody tells me I'm ignorant of all kinds of things I need to know my impression is that nobody ever really explains what they have in mind.
This is yet another grossly false claim. People have explained and explained and explained, and all you've done is dismissed it, claimed it's all assumptions and suppositions, characterized it as too complicated, said you never talk from some perspective even though you do, said the image was too white, said someone was too rude, said they weren't thinking, said it was crazy, ignored it completely, or any of dozens of ways you have for not giving any consideration to what someone just went to a lot of trouble to carefully explain. This thread alone has many detailed and thoughtful explanations. You still haven't provided a decent reply to HereBeDragon's Message 583.
Although there have no doubt been explanations, it remains true in my mind that I don't know what you are talking about.
I think I speak for everyone here that we stand ready to explain in as much detail as necessary and to answer as many questions as you have. Most have been doing that all along. Some, given your history, see futility in this and give occasional voice to this feeling, but mostly not.
There are endless complaints about how I treat everybody else's stuff as trash, but I'm not supposed to notice that it's done to me.
Providing detailed feedback about any problems in your arguments and ideas is not trashing them. If you see problems or mistakes in the feedback then you respond about them. It's called discussion. What you don't do is ignore and dismiss responses while telling people that they're not thinking.
Please note that you and PK in this recent exchange have gone on and on excoriating me for my ignorance without once even giving a single example of that ignorance.
Good God, practically every thread you've participated in contains tons of examples of your ignorance. In this thread alone, and providing just a few examples, you've displayed an ignorance of the definition of species, of how speciation works (you don't have to agree it happens, just understand how it is presumed to work), of whether breeding produces new species, of the genetic indistinguishability of the Pod Kopište and Pod Mrčaru lizards, of how only mutations could produce alleles beyond four in number for unclean animals from the ark, of the lack of any genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago, and of how genetic markers inform our understanding of life's history of descent.
I'm pretty sure all you mean by my ignorance is my refusal to accept the tenets of the ToE and the Old Earth. Do you think there's more to it?
While I'm sure we all have successful persuasion as the ideal goal, I think most of us would be happy if we were able to place you on a path of improving your understanding of what evolution and geology actually say, and how the world really works.
I want to answer this but for the moment will only say that I gather my "ignorance" is embodied in having a view of things you disagree with,...
Your ignorance isn't made apparent by anyone's disagreement with you. It is apparent in the many things you do not know or understand, indeed, that you refuse to know or understand, and in the many things you think you know that are unsupported by any facts, indeed are often contradicted by the facts.
I say the strata are straight and flat and you tell me I'm ignorant of phenomena...
But you *are* ignorant of phenomena. For just a few geological examples, you're ignorant of the fact that floods do not sort lifeforms by their degree of difference from modern forms, that sediments fall out of suspension heaviest/densest first, and that the Grand Canyon region is not a record of everything that happened geologically around the world. If you feel the need to respond about any of these examples you should reply over at the Did the Flood really happen? thread.
The problem is that I agree with every word you said already, though I thlnk perhaps I should say it myself from time to time (I do say it though, but I'm not believed). I don't doubt any of that about the scientific mind and the scientific pursuit, though clearly that's how I'm coming across. The thing is you thlnk all that honest endeavor has arrived at truth, so that what you are really saying is that I should acknowledge THAT, their conclusions and not just their methods and motivations. This is where I get into the questions about the Historical Sciences that also brings ire and enmity down on my head. But the sciences of the past really don't have the safeguards of the hard sciences of the laboratory so that all the sincere honest scientific work on those sciences is ultimately subjective and can be wrong even if the whole scientific community agrees.
I do acknowledge that there are areas of study that pose a challenge to creationist views, but not really all that many and they are a problem just because there is no way to go back and find out the truth about them. We can't go back and find out if tree rings weren't always annual for instance, and that accepting today's experience of tree rings is a fair standard for judging what happened in the past. Interpreting the past in terms of the present is what creationists complain about as Uniformitarianism. It seems reasonable enough but if there were dramatic differences in the past they get ignored by this principle. The idea that a genetic bottleneck at the time of the Flood would produce the same genetic effects it would produce today is wrong but that won't be recognized except by a creationist.
Of course uniformitarianism makes sense to anyone who thlnks the Bible is bunk, as you do. I don't know if there is any other clue to a truly different past than the Bible, but from the Bible we have the description of a different climate, and the assertion that human beings had a longevity of eight or nine hundred years before the Flood and that after the Flood the longevity declined over the first few centuries but still reached into the hundreds. If I believe the Bible then I have to thlnk of the past as a different kind of place than we experience today, I have to thlnk of all living things as having a lot more health and strength and longevity than we see today. But to those who reject the Bible I'm just an idyut.
So yes, my intransigence is indeed the problem, but the intransigence comes from believing a completely different worldview, it's not just a set of ideas that could be exchanged for another set of ideas through more education. So if I'm to educate myself to accept your point of view I'm being asked to give up the whole basis of my point of view. I'm being asked to reject the Bible.
So there's no way to escape the insults. I can't be anything other than the ignorant bag lady you thlnk I am.
I don't thlnk it's true that I "don't learn" and need to learn more, as I just said to PK, all it ends up meaning is that I'm not accepting the establishment point of view.
Rejecting a viewpoint is one thing, not understanding it is another. You reject the scientific understanding on many things without first understanding it.
I do learn all the time when I see that I need to take something into account that I've been missing.
When will you stop making claims about yourself that everyone knows are not true. I've been witness to all your years of participation here, and while you've learned more than nothing, it is little more. Many things you think you've learned you've learned incorrectly, like Walther's Law.
But of course what I learn is something I think buttresses my own point of view, and that is not learning according to the majority denizens of EvC.
For the umpteenth time, EvC does not promote ideas and perspectives unique to itself. It is a mainstream science site. For the most part those on the side of science are promoting the mainstream views of science.
Even if I went back to school and got degrees in biology and geology, what I end up arguing at EvC would brand me as ignorant.
Presuming that you graduated with an understanding of biology and geology, the quality of your discussion here would improve dramatically and you would change many of your ideas. If you somehow kept the same ideas you have now then you would be in conflict with the facts, but since you would no longer be ignorant you would know that already.
I have books on population genetics, plus Genetics for Dummies, and five books on Geology, two of them about the Grand Canyon from the creationist point of view but the rest standard stuff. I've read most of all of them and continue to go back to them from time to time.
Your posts here give no indication of an understanding of population genetics or geology, plus I doubt your truthfulness since book pages are generally mostly white, which you constantly complain you cannot abide and frequently use as an excuse for not viewing images. I don't even understand how you enter messages here since the message box is white.
quote: The problem is that I agree with every word you said already, though I thlnk perhaps I should say it myself from time to time (I do say it though, but I'm not believed). I don't doubt any of that about the scientific mind and the scientific pursuit, though clearly that's how I'm coming across. The thing is you thlnk all that honest endeavor has arrived at truth, so that what you are really saying is that I should acknowledge THAT, their conclusions and not just their methods and motivations.
Wrong, as usual. We would like you to be honest and accept that the evidence is strong and that scientifically the case is pretty much as closed as it can get on many issues - the scientific case that the Earth is far older than your views allow, for instance, is unassailable, even if the exact age might conceivably be revised (up or down).
You don’t have to accept that science is correct, and we don’t insist on that.
quote: This is where I get into the questions about the Historical Sciences that also brings ire and enmity down on my head.
By which you mean you get caught inventing false excuses and people prove you wrong. The ire and enmity mainly comes from you.
quote: But the sciences of the past really don't have the safeguards of the hard sciences of the laboratory so that all the sincere honest scientific work on those sciences is ultimately subjective and can be wrong even if the whole scientific community agrees.
They have far more than you will admit to. And you have to admit it is much better than making nonsensical claims that even you don’t seem to understand, like your assertion that the order of the fossil record is an “illusion”. But apparently we are supposed to “acknowledge” such points while you refuse to acknowledge real science.
quote: Of course uniformitarianism makes sense to anyone who thlnks the Bible is bunk, as you do. I don't know if there is any other clue to a truly different past than the Bible, but from the Bible we have the description of a different climate, and the assertion that human beings had a longevity of eight or nine hundred years before the Flood and that after the Flood the longevity declined over the first few centuries but still reached into the hundreds
The Bible doesn’t actually even mention a different climate. And the ages are a commonplace of myth from the region. Check out the Sumerian King List. Not to mention the fact that myths without evidence have little scientific value.
quote: So yes, my intransigence is indeed the problem, but the intransigence comes from believing a completely different worldview
No, it’s not that. It’s the lack of intellectual honesty, the lack of concern about the truth. Disagreements are one thing. Making things up and complaining they we don’t believe them is quite another. And that is hardly the limit of your bad behaviour.
The thing is you thlnk all that honest endeavor has arrived at truth, so that what you are really saying is that I should acknowledge THAT, their conclusions and not just their methods and motivations.
Not TRVTH™ but the best fit explanation for the known body of fact.
If that best fit says the Earth orbits the sun instead of the other way around who are you, with your lack of knowledge of gravity and orbital mechanics, to say otherwise?
If that best fit says there was no worldwide flud who are you, with your lack of knowledge of geology and hydro mechanics, to say otherwise?
Part of the scientific process you have no respect for is the methods are dissected to excruciating detail to be sure they actually measure what they purport to measure or conclude only what the facts demand.
And motives are constantly assailed to wring out as much personal agenda as possible. I’ve been to conferences where scientists yelled and screamed at each other across a blackboard because of agenda. The days of a Lord Kelvin ruling the scientific roost are way long gone.
That is why there is worldwide consensus on most scientific conclusions like heliocentrism and no stinkin freakin flud.
None of this happens in religion which is why you folks have such a philosophical, fact-less, agenda-centric mess on your hands. What, some 10,000+ different creeds just in your boat alone? Because it’s all fabricated in your head without any fact or logic to back it up. Bad form for seeking TRVTH™.
But the sciences of the past really don't have the safeguards of the hard sciences of the laboratory …
… so that all the sincere honest scientific work on those sciences is ultimately subjective …
… and can be wrong even if the whole scientific community agrees.
Now we have agreement. Some of it could be wrong, but not by anything you or your blind anti-scientific creed can produce. But because we are human and sometimes it takes a while for us apes to learn.
So yes, my intransigence is indeed the problem, but the intransigence comes from believing a completely different worldview …
No, it comes from your unwillingness to learn and accept demonstrable fact. I’m not talking conclusions based on those facts, I’m talking your unwillingness to even acknowledge that known demonstrable facts are there.
All I meant by the word "truth" was the lower-case meaning about something being believed to be true.
And I know that nothing in science is perfect, but although everybody here including you keeps chopping off my head for it, I thlnk the sciences of the past are less reliable simply because it's all determined from the point of view of the present, and at least in the case of geology what must have happened to bring about the observable inert results of it all has to be extrapolated and interpreted without any help other than what we already thlnk and know about the present.
I don't claim to be anybody, but I do know some things about the relevant issues. There are YECs who have academic degrees though if that's what's required.
I didn't question anybody's motives or agenda, quite the opposite, so please don't add that to my burden of supposed guilt.
There's only one creed in my boat, all Bible based, which includes the creed of salvation and the creed of creation and the Flood. If any of this is denied it's not my creed.
There is very little DEMONSTRABLE fact I can rightly be accused of denying, though I certainly question a lot of supposed facts in the sciences of the past (and only those.)
quote: I thlnk the sciences of the past are less reliable simply because it's all determined from the point of view of the present, and at least in the case of geology what must have happened to bring about the observable inert results of it all has to be extrapolated and interpreted without any help other than what we already thlnk and know about the present.
Less reliable does not mean unreliable, nor does it mean that any and all conclusions are hopelessly unreliable. There can be huge numbers of cross-checks (RAZD’s dating correlations is an example) which can greatly reduce the possibility of error. What do ice layer deposition, tree growth and the deposition of varves in lakes have to do with the radioactive decay of C14? Or even each other ? Well the passage of time is the obvious one. But what would cause them all to produce the same results ? (Within the limits of the methods, limits which are taken into account)
On the other hand you feel free to make up anything you like with no evidence beyond the fact that it supports your views - and you expect us to take it as a serious possibility. Anyone can see that that is just nuts.
quote: Anyway the enmity can't be abolished
You could try being less abrasive and ******** and hostile. You could try being more honest. You could try not posting the same nonsense again and again. But you won’t.