Summations Only

Unfortunately, this is wrong. Respect is earned via effort. ICANT wants the theory of general relativity and the big bang theory explained so a fifth grader can understand it. Well, not everything can be explained to a 10-year-old if the standard is that you have to prove it to the 10-year-old.We can use analogies and pictures and simplifications in order to describe the results, but actually convincing someone requires actually studying the science and reaching conclusions, perhaps with some guidance. Nothing can be proven with an analogy. The real data and science is required.Respect is due to the person who puts in the effort to understand, and who is willing to question his own beliefs about science. That might mean going out and getting information or looking things up when the explanation being offered is not good enough. Zero respect is due to the illiterate person who won't even try to read a scientific paper. Let's not generalize too much. You are not necessarily representative of the public in terms of what is a reasonable level to present things.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Personal respect as a human being? Sure. But respecting their opinion on a scientific matter that required the scientist to study for a decade? That kind of respect must be earned.

You accepted evolution based on what?

The point, in case you missed it, is that you accept and reject evolution, and just about anything else, based on reasoning that would not satisfy anything. High school presentations may describe the theory of evolution, but the may well not provide what would constitute scientific proof to a 14-year-old audience. There is nothing nefarious about that.If you want to understand complicated stuff, you might have to obtain a bit more of an education first.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The magazines are presenting/describing. They do not contain the proof you think ought to be there. That is not a lack of respect. The magazines simply do not serve what you are claiming is your purpose.

Really? Because you make nearly 900 posts about a very similar topic in another thread that just ended.No, you don't have to try to deal, but you have done so, and likely will again.

It was not Percy. You said something pretty close to soil and dirt not being able to become sedimentary rock, and I am sure that is what Tangle is calling you on. I don't know exactly what you meant when you said it, so I will leave it open for you to explain.There is no way that Percy would have said that sedimentary mud could not become rock. That would be inane.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think the issue is more fundamental than that. A physicist would not start every inquiry by proving that F = ma, and he would not question the origin of the sun every time he counted the number of sunspots on them.Similarly, a scientist studying the Jurrasic period is not going to write a bunch of papers proving that the earth is old or proving that dating methods work. That groud was well covered decades ago. If a popular science book is written describing the same period, the authors are not going to cover that material either. They do assume that the earth is old, for reasons that were covered when they were in college in countless fields of scientific endeavor.If you want to question the time periods, you need to seek out the science or specific articles that actually address the age of the earth. But questioning why biologists and paleontologists do not do that in every single article or bit of research they do, whatever the audience, is beyond ridiculous.This thread is just about Faith being butt hurt that the findings of science are taken seriously by some, and are not even being questioned by the authors of 99 percent of every article she will ever read. Yet when scientific papers are cited, suddenly her eyes glaze over, the paper is too white, the text too small even for optical aids, and the posts too long. The evidence is available, but it is not in kids coloring books about dinosaurs.Nobody need apologize for what popular science rags do. It is totally legitimate to write even scientific articles that don't question the fact that the earth is billions of years old, or that humans evolved. There is a place for the details and the questioning too. But it is not in articles or research that is about something else entirely.Isn't that Discovery Institute hard on the case disproving this stuff? Where is their science?Like every thread Faith offers, this one is a farce that tells us much more about her than it does the purported topic. Keep them coming.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Which is not the same thing at all. Percy would never have said that sedimentary rock cannot form from sediments. That would require some kind of idiot. If you "said something that sounds different?" Sure. Let me remind you and everyone else exactly what you said. I don't believe any additional context is necessary, but I will provide a link to the message just in case you want to explain the inexplicable. From: Message 2760From: Message 2824

I think your article describes half of the issue.The other 50% is that by and large, the in question articles are not written to convince folks of things that are old hat. The intended purpose of every article, comic book, or TV show about the Jurassic is not to prove that it really happened tens of millions of years ago. Only a small percentage of the literature is intended to take on that question.Complaining about a popular science article that does not take on your favorite issue is unreasonable in the extreme.I wonder how many sermons don't include the pastor proving that Jesus was resurrected, but instead take that for granted.