What does being crazy really look like?

Honored Admin and Worthy EvCers:I think I might have to declare myself crazy if I attempted to give an opinion on the subject of this thread knowing the sort of reception I'd get -- and will get anyway even if I don't, but oh well. Of course I could at least say that if the denizens of EvC were to spend much time in certain other web environments you would find most of YOU defined as crazy. But you probably know that.But the reason I'm writing this is to suggest that someone here, Dr. A perhaps, or perhaps a committee chosen by vote (or at least a Thread), not including any creationists or conservatives or other dubious types of course, should devise a TEST to determine exactly who has the characteristics you all agree on as "crazy" -- OR dysphysic or however Dr. A put that, or whatever other qualities impinge on the subject matter -- and then let us all take that test. Make a good list of those characteristics first of course; that would be interesting in itself. I'm sure there are models Out There for such an enterprise, but I have sufficient faith in the intelligence and creativity of those most respected here that they could come up with something truly determinative on their own.Then we'd have EVIDENCE rather than subjective opinion. You know, the stuff you all purport to admire above all else.Yours truly,
FaithABE: Apologies, this should probably have been a General Reply.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is nothing I'm aware of that I could furnish here that would be accepted as proving that. Simply believing in an inerrant Bible that teaches a 6000-year-old Earth seems to be sufficient proof that I'm mentally unhinged to most here, and my opinion on gun control gets me a similar judgment.This is why an objective test is desirable, one that seeks to be as neutral and objective as possible, employing criteria that don't simply reflect the biases on either side of the ongoing arguments at EvC but truly aim at an objective assessment of ability to think rationally and logically.I remember years ago being given some kind of test for Independent Thinking or Context-Independence or some such title, something that purportedly demonstrates to what extent a person solves problems on the evidence available or according to preconceived notions, and I scored extremely high on independence or evidential (evidentiary?) thinking, which at the time gave me a little rush of pride.It seems to be what you are all looking for and yet here subjectively I am judged quite otherwise according to YOUR biases. So it seems to me. Not that a truly objective test would influence any of you I suppose, you'd probably just decide there's something wrong with the test if I did well on it.But at EvC of all places, where EVIDENCE is of such high value, and OBJECTIVITY, it would be nice to see it done.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No possibility of an objective test then. Not that I'm surprised.

Of course you do, which is exactly what I'm talking about, rampant subjective judgment. You CALL It an objective test but it's just the gospel according to Dr. Adequate as usual, pure garbage. Righto, who needs objectivity when we have such perspicacious bullshit from Dr. A.Forget evidence, forget objectivity, just ask Dr. A. He's a one man Supreme Court. Operates pretty much the same way too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sure you have NO idea how EXACTLY that describes the experience of those of us who disagree with the majority at EvC. To a T.

Dysphysica: Could that be something like the insane idea that flat slabs of rock that are laid down horizontally over thousands of square miles, and their fossil contents, actually represent ancient landscapes that persisted over vast time periods (and then ...rather abruptly to judge by the interface change in temporal circumstances between them ... changed to a different kind of ...rock a new landscape with a new Time Period designation ...with different kinds of ... obviously catastrophically drowned and buried fossils flora and fauna that evolved from the previous slab of rock flora and fauna / Time Period) in which those fossils were once roaming living creatures that just happened to die there one after another?Now THAT's Dysphysica, or perhaps simple Dementia, an absolute inability to imagine anything even remotely possible that accounts for the actual evidence. Or Delusion, or Bias-Bound Brain Syndrome.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Tch tch tch, I think you are coming unraveled here.The geological record that has been patiently explained that I reject is truly delusional which is of course why I reject it.Now perhaps some 95% of your Intro to Geology is good science. It's that 5% that's delusional that I reject.Now you can say No it isn't and I can say Yes it is forever. All that matters is who has the power, and that's you. Truth is irrelevant.

Are you intentionally twisting my meaning, or was I unclear that I meant it is YOU for whom truth is irrelevant? -- that you win arguments here only because you have lots of power through numbers who agree with you and not because anything you say is true. Which it isn't when you are insisting on the Old Earth explanation of the strata.However, I do agree with you on the griffin thread, which will most probably give you an ulcer to hear it, since I'm so stupid, but I'll pray for your ulcer to get better anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : thought it best not to totalize