I am extremely busy with several things, but what you have posted and keep posting contains so many egregious errors and false notions that I must respond, albeit sporadically given my limited time.
Of course you will ignore my responses since you are a creationist (and sadly a rather typical one, though at first I did hold out some hope you would be different) and ignoring information in order to maintain a saintly state of willful ignorance has proven to be a fundamental article of faith for creationists. But others will also read my responses ("visitors", AKA "lurkers", used to be reported in the "online now" entry at the top of the page), so they can benefit even though you will refuse to allow yourself to.
Confident Engineers and Scientists are generally eager to explain their hypotheses and address questions, if only to show their knowledge and reinforce their ideas. The good ones can break it down to terms their audience can understand, rather than launching into arcane technospeak.
Your basic mistake here is to decry "jargon", which you call "arcane technospeak". Your display of ignorance about professional discourse tells me that you have never worked in any kind of a profession. Given that your arrival here bears so many of the markings of the typical Christian school/Sunday School assignment of joining a forum in order to harass "evolutionists" (a typical creationist
dog whistle that creationists have always refused to ever define (again, in my nearly
FORTY YEARS experience with creationists) and which was the first thing to give you away). That combined with your obvious lack of professional experience tells me that you are probably still in high school ... or maybe in some Christian college.
Yes, professionals (not just engineers or scientists) are indeed generally eager to discuss their professional work, not with the general public but rather
with their peers, with others in the same profession or in related ones.
Every single profession has its own specialized terminology and language with which professionals are able to communicate with each other
efficiently, rapidly, and accurately. That "jargon" is based on common training, common professional knowledge, and common work experience,
things that those outside that profession would not share with the professionals. Without any such "jargon", professionals would simply not be able to communicate effectively with other professionals.
Those outside those professions will complain about the use of jargon,
as you have just done, but frankly those professionals do not care that you cannot understand their clearly understandable (to them) professional discourse. They are much more concerned with doing their work.
For myself, I have worked in carpentry, construction, as a digital electronics technician, engineer (AKA "intelligent designer"), served in the US Air Force and then the Navy Reserve, so I have learned the "jargon" of those fields (indeed, we can spot
stolen valor almost immediately). In addition, I have studied several other fields such that I have knowledge of their jargon. Indeed, in almost every college or military course, the first lecture consists almost entirely of defining the terminology that the course will use.
So if you are so ignorant of jargon and its vital importance, then you must not have had any professional training or experience yet.
Now, what part of that do you not understand?
Explaining the technical aspects of one's field to non-professionals is a
educational task with requires special skills that most professionals do not possess (nor care to) and preparation work that few have time for even if they had any such inclination.
Now, there's nothing to stop professionals with no educational training/preparation from trying to explain their work to non-professionals, it is rarely successful and often does not end well.
For example, the last two decades of my software engineering career I worked on a product line which disciplined a cheap oscillator (AKA "CAO" for "cheap-ass oscillator") in order to make it highly precise. The motivation is that such highly precise frequency and timing outputs are needed for communication networks (such as the ones connecting cell towers thus making our cell phones possible), but making a precise oscillator is too expensive. Now how would I explain to someone at a party what I did for a living? Just explaining the leap seconds part would go over most people's heads (refer to
Message 99 for the creationist claim related to leap seconds). In one case (nurse brought in by the company for flu shots), even just the word "oscillator" flew high over her head, let alone what possible use one could have for an oscillator. That is how confused most scientists would leave non-scientists they tried to explain their work to.
So for a professional to explain his work to non-professionals, he must
dumb it down for them. A lot is lost (and unintentionally added) in that translation. For example, a scientist is well aware of the degree of certainty of a particular conclusion as well as all the provisions, etc, that went into that, but he cannot include (or at least properly convey) all those things so that's all lost in its "dumbing down" such that a tentative though very highly likely conclusion ends up being construed as an absolute pronouncement.
And isn't that what you creationists always complain about? Eg, from your
Message 107:
K.Rose writes:
These days the Great Deceit of many scientific theories lies in their presentation to the public as implied fact, and in allowing the misconception of factuality to stand.
That's because you're only familiar with the dumbed-down version which has to leave out all the provisos. But when scientists do include and explain all those provisos, then it turns into an essay or book that you complain about in the OP,
Message 1:
K.Rose writes:
... explanations of evolution that require an essay or a book
You don't want the actual facts but rather want it dumbed down, but when we do dumb it down for you then you complain about
that. So we try to explain it to you, filling in that missing information and you complain yet again that it's turning into an essay or book! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot-Oscar?
Damned if we do and damned if we don't. What the f*** do you want? Make up your mind!
When you're over the target you'll take a lot of flak.
No, you're grossly and dangerously off course and we're trying to warn you. But we have to get your attention first.
From
Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, on a divided interstate highway from across the median to their right a car traveling in the same direction is trying to get their attention:
quote:
"You're going the wrong way! You're going to get someone killed!"
You're going the
wrong way!
™ Version 4.2
(1)
