@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
You just fail to WANT to understand the evidence Ive presented. (Id say more from ignorance predicated on religious beliefs).
Of course I want to. Why else would I be searching so hard for explanatory reasoning amidst your tapestries of facts and information.
Let me help you a little with yet another example:
The water cycle:
1) explaning: sunlight warms land, warm convection currents evaporate water and raise it to higher altitude, water vapor cools as it rises, precipitation happens and falls down
2) tapestry of facts: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation occur.
What you do is deploy the tapestry and then ridicule your reader for not already understanding how the pieces fit together prior to you explaining them.
You have to explain things if you want people to understand them. If all you do is ridicule them for not understanding, they will probably just pretend to understand in order to avoid ridicule.
Quote:So, I now know that I'll never make a dent in your denialist thinking. (anyone who believes in the inerrancy of NOAH's Flood has very little space in their brain for actual "Science discussions"
You don't understand how to listen to different POVs without already judging them right or wrong, do you?
I'll help you again with this: 1) yes things are right or wrong; 2) listening to something that's wrong doesn't make it right, even if you don't immediately reject it as being wrong.
In other words, you can listen to different POVs and think about them without accepting or rejecting them by doing so.
It's called tentative acceptance and it's central to scientific thinking because scientific theories are never proven right, only established as not yet having been proven wrong. We have to accept things tentatively in order to maintain scientific skepticism about the possibility that they are wrong, whether they are about Noah's Flood or Darwinian Evolution or Quantum Mechanics or whatever.