Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I bid farewell
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1018 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 6 of 28 (226300)
07-25-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


Chris, I think you are an exceedingly intelligent person and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see you become a leader in your field sometime in the future. I'm sorry to see you leave.
My personal opinion on why you have (and get) a hard time here, specifically in the science forum, is because:
1. Your form of writing is too often very difficult to understand. You use too many 'big' and/or obscure words, which convolute almost each one of your sentences. Maybe YOU understand what you're writing, but what matters most is if your audience can understand what you're writing. Scientific writing already has a significant number of difficult terms, we don't need anymore. I hope that in the course of your education, you learn to write in a more straight-forward and clear manner.
2. Your idea of what constitutes science is a bit off - either that, or I/we just can't understand what you're trying to say or you're being deliberately obtuse. Percy is not the only one who has a problem with your scientific statements and methodologies. It seems to me pretty much every scientist you have come into contact with on this forum has a problem with how you present and support your various positions. I would suggest you consider that in the future and ask yourself why that might be. Like I said, it's either because you fail to present your ideas in such a way that we can understand them, you are way off in your thinking, or you know exactly what you're doing.
I suspect, Chris, that if you continue studying geoscience (maybe getting an M.Sc. or Ph.D.), at some point in time you will be given the opportunity to apply your knowledge in practical situations. Then perhaps you might understand why we had such a problem with you. Right now, although you have a solid understanding of some basic and even complex geologic principles, you lack quite a bit of basic knowledge. You lack a conceptual understanding of geology, which is completely understandable since you've just started your college education.
In either case, I am sorry to see you leave. Especially over something as innocuous as "what constitutes evidence?" I think it's in your best interest to learn as much as you can about the topic. Heck, I've learned some new stuff.
You are one of a few (VERY FEW!) creationists who is actually willing to deal with the data - to a point. Good luck and take care.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-25-2005 05:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1018 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 18 of 28 (226546)
07-26-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
07-26-2005 4:14 PM


Crash writes:
...if you're being asked to defend a scientific proposal or model, and you're referencing Popper instead of evidence, then what you're doing is nonsense. None of that philosophy is relevant to convincing scientists, or anybody else for that matter, that you have a compelling model.
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2005 4:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024