Comparitive delusions

I too agree Faith accurately identified what was fact versus what was interpretive; and that would seem to conflict with her accusation that we fail to write in a manner in which the laity can understand.The problem with Faith accusations, and IRH commented on it, was that Faith did not ASK for me to elaborate or provide references for the statements I made. I do speak as if certain things are fact, because while not 'absolute fact,' I have been convinced by the mounds of compelling evidence that they have merit.The truth is, however, that no amount of evidence will ever convince Faith so long as she believes she is the smartest human being... ever.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-17-2006 01:55 PM

quote:

---

I QUOTED A NUMBER OF POSTS AT LENGTH IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NECESSARY DISTINCTIONS.

---

You quoted. You did not offer evidence that one part was conjecture and another part was not. The reasoning you offered was your own opinion, nothing more.

quote:

---

THERE IS NO POINT IN GIVING FURTHER PROOF AS NOTHING I SAY IS EVER ACCEPTED BY ANYBODY.

---

Well, that would mean you offered any proof to begin with. You didn't, as "proof" only exists in mathematics. If you mean evidence, well, you didn't give any of that either - just an endless stream of opinion, and the occasional snide comment.

quote:

---

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.

---

What exactly does your experience have to do with the discussion here? You called me delusional. You insinuated that scientists are misguided or dishonest. Do you mean to tell us that you based that on your experience rather than actual evidence? Unfortunately as we all know, our personal experiences are subjective and not valid (as they are not repeatable).Why should we take your word for it? You've shown nothing to convince us so far, and this post is not helping at all. Believe it or not, it takes more than rhetoric to convince a scientist of anything - and you can feel insulted about this if you want, but you've said far worse and never apologised for it.

quote:

---

YOU GUYS MANAGE TO GET EVERYTHING SO WRONG ABOUT MY MOTIVES AND WHAT I'M SAYING THE WHOLE THING HERE IS RIDICULOUS.

---

We can only go by what you post. If you can't clearly explain yourself in such a way that many people here get the wrong impression about you, then that is a fault on your part, not ours.If you don't like the debate here and think it's ridiculous, then leave, Faith. If you think we're bad people who don't listen and are out to misunderstand you every time, just leave. It's quite easy.But don't think for one second that we will just accept anything you say that we happen to disagree with.{edited for clarity}This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 03-17-2006 06:52 PM

Here you go, Nosy: Message 4 in the Scientific Fact versus Interpretation thread.

From mMessage 4Fact! Apparently your God choose to write a clock into the rocks. These measurements are as much fact as reading a clock. You lost the privilege of critising this when you dropped out of dating discussions. (bolding yours). Fact! The available evidences does, in fact, indicate what is suggested. This is an example of the kind of language that is used in scientific publications. Even when something is has a high degree of likelyhood of being true we get words like "indicate". Your own bolded quote is a direct contra indication to your accusations. Which are you arguing with? Do you suggest that the original rock was laid down in folds etc.? Do you suggest that shist is an unmetomorphosized rock? If so suggest another explanation. I suspect that you argree that a "sea" transgressed the original material. Or are you actually suggesting that limestone etc. can be laid down without water (flood sea or transgressing sea). If you think that it is unreasonable to state this as "fact" (very, very reasonable conclusion) perhaps you can offer your own interpretation that is not contradicted by the facts. You left the bold off the "points to". This is another example of a FACT. The evidence does indeed "point to" the conclusion. Once again your own quote disproves your idea that things are stated as hard fact . Again, "generally considered" NOT presented as totally hard fact. Yes, presented as fact. Guilty as charged. However even here the evidence that points to such a conclusion is given. In fact, "appear to suggest" is not "stating as fact".The rest is given as fact. Of course, this is a summary and not the original source. Well, even in these threads, with people who are spending a small amount of time on it we do have "plenty of evidence". On the other hand, you side declares there are problems for the flood and decides not to discuss the evidence any furhter. In fact, in one major area of evidence after another the only answer that is forth coming (and this is a LOT more intellectually honest than many posters here) is an admission that the evidence is a problem for the flood.Given the lack of explanation for the evidence from those who disagree with the geological conclusions I think that expressing the current explanations as "fact" (and only doing that sometimes) is pretty reasonable. Some may think you need to do this but I suggest that the amount of work you have to do to "protect yourself" varies with the degree of "protection" you want. I find it reasonably easy to read the presented evidence and consider the reasons that the conclusions have been arrived at. I see them as being convincing enough. But them my immortal soul isn't at stake if I get it wrong. Certainly, when I try to have a look at the evidence and reasoning of the YEC side the weaknesses jump out in an obvious fashion. The weaknesses have been shown up very clearly in all the areas that you have engaged in discussion. One flag is you leaving another is you putting it aside as a "problem" for the flood. A third clue is that wehn one goes to ICR (e.g.,) the specific issues aren't touched on but rather ignored.It doesn't require a degree to compare and contrast the two sides.

That is why I was careful to say YEC. I have tried to avoid the use of the word creationist because I am a creationist. Just not a YEC.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Er, no Faith, Nosy is right. Dating rocks is a fact. If you think it isn't, please join the relevent thread and argue your case - because just repeating that it isn't is a tad silly.

quote:

---

Again, proof that it is science itself that has lost its bearings, if it can call an interpretive scheme a fact.

---

You read the quote, right? It didn't say fact. It said "indicate". Maybe this means something different to you than it does to everyone else?

quote:

---

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.

---

Faith, if you know any process that can form a chunk or packet of unconsolidated sediment (complete with layers, ripples, whatever) and transport it over any kind of distance without leaving any trace of that process and preserving the chunk or packet entirely intact, then describe it now. In detail, instead of handwaving away with the 'Flooddidit' explanation.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why do you keep repeating yourself? Your entire argument seems to be "it's just interpretation, it doesn't mean anything, the same thing could be used as evidence for the Flood" yet you never present anything further. No explanation, no scenarios, not even a workable hypothesis so far.Either educate yourself about basic geology to the point where you can present such an explanation, or drop it.

I, perhaps, should have worded that in simpler language. You misinterpreted it . The fact being refered to is that the evidence indicates the conclusion that is being suggested. That "indicate" is used is a direct contradiction of your claims of something being claimed as fact without qualification. I suggest you slow down and read much more carefully.Your comments on the Mountain building are technically correct. The statement is an interpretation of the evidence found. However, it gets utterly silly to keep being wishy washy about such interpretations when no one, least of all you, have offered any reasonable alternative explanation. You've been asked for them and when difficulties are pointed out you give up. You see, Faith, it is very difficult to sort through all the evidence available and actually construct a coherent, comprehensive interrpretation. The creation "scientists" have had decades and simply can't do it. Once again, read more carefully! I offered both transgressing sea AND a flood for an explantation of the evidence. Your suggesting of such sediments being transported (as IRH points out) is as utterly rediculous as grasses running for higher ground. You are not doing your views any favours by insisting on making them look as foolish as possible. Yes, but you miss the point. The language used in what you choose to quote makes the interpretive natue very clear. It belies the point you are trying to make. What you used to support you idea exactly contradicts it. How did you miss that?

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

You argue here in support of the Flood that Now you say that mountains building does not occur, which supports the idea of a world-wide Flood.Do you even remember what you say from one minute to the next? Does it matter to you that you contradict yourself? Or is it more important to put forth a minimally coherent arguement against an old Earth than to bother to get ANY facts straight?Amazingly, this is not new and not exclusively your domain. Every creationist website argues the pieces and doesn't bother to look at the whole.

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

Actually mountain building is observed. We can measure the height of a mountain and then come back next year and measure it again. If it is taller then it is building. Just like the Himalays.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

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

quote:

---

...I can't see any justification for treating such a scenario as anywhere near a fact.

---

Well, of course not. You're a bible literalist and such a scenario would be contrary to the bible - and as such you reject it immediately as you believe without a shadow of a doubt that the bible must be right, no matter what it says. And if it was proved wrong, why, that must mean your god was wrong. And then the world would end. Or something. (I assume something horrible as you defend it so rigourously.)To return to the topic of this thread - because of faith, you believe the bible is completely true in every way. This means you believe in many things that I mentioned earlier (talking bushes and snakes, say) that are very much nonsensical. So again, my question - what gives you or any creationist the right to accuse any scientist of being misguided or deluded about science, when you yourself are apparently misguided or deluded from a scientific point of view? And if I may point out, you have not offered anything by way of an argument to show that scientists are deluded/misguided (see the Scientific Interpretation thread), other than endlessly repeating that you are right and we are all somehow stupid for not recognising it - whereas literalists creationists are by definition deluded/misguided from a scientific point of view (because they believe in such things as talking bushes and snakes), and routinely shown to be at best highly ignorant or misinformed about science and at worst completely fraudulent?Is the pot calling the kettle black, Faith?

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.