Do you trust our ability to measure data? Say for example, that you asked us to measure the similarity between to DNA sequences. Let’s say @sfmatheson, @glipsnort, or I agreed to do it. Do you trust we would not lie to you? Do you trust we would be transparent and prompt in explaining the methods we used? Do you trust we would not alter the results before showing it to you? Do you trust we wouldn’t withhold important information you didn’t know about?
Next question.
Do you have the same, lower, or higher trust in a YEC scientist? Perhaps you can include the names of specific scientists if it is a different answer for each one.
To be clear, we are not discussing interpretation of data, but your perception about our ability to transparently and accurately report what we have seen.
Sorry but interpretation is all you have. I am not doubting that you have a semblance of rigor in your analyses - I have seen it. But unlike physics, you have not proven any of your predictions (I use “proven” loosely, but you know what I mean). Every prediction you have made - with your semblance of rigor - has been shown to have far too many dangling alternative possibilities to say with any certainty that they are correct.
OMG. Easy answer. I have told you and yours time and again. Be honest with your science or lack thereof, and simply acknowledge that YECs also practice a science or lack thereof, and add this to your rejection of their science: “Hmm. Interesting. I may have never thought of that possibility. If true, then yes, your YEC view of things could actually be correct.”
I have said it before. Do you want real peace here? Then acknowledge YEC science - insofar as it shows some degree of being defensible - and allow those ideas to permeate your restricted space just as much as you allow your very narrow ideas to presently permeate.
Question. How would it threaten you and yours to deliberately and actively welcome YECs rather than continually ill-legitimize them? You haven’t really tried it, have you? I already know what it would do. Peaceful Science would actually blow wide open and be transformed into a legitimate, and very real forum for a scientific and peaceful exchange of ideas. You would be catapulted to the top of the internet overnight. There would literally be no-one else like you around. It would be a strange and wonderful thing to see.
Sure. Some YECs do science. I’ve argued that several times.
Why would I lie? I thought this from the beginning. Over and over again I’ve taken time to assess their scientific claims on their own terms. What more could you expect?
We discuss YEC science here all the time. I just invited Marcus Ross to join the conversation too. What more can we do?
Right now I am deliberately and actively inviting and welcoming Marcus Ross to join the conversation. Did you miss that?
I’m making the invitation. YEC scientists have to come. We will treat with them with respect and give them a fair hearing. I will ensure it.
That did not come across in PS’s treatment of Nelson. You can do better, or not at all. And since he was not respected, and since he already knows he should be respected (and yes, he should be), he simply opted for “not at all” and vanished. That is your loss. To drive off a well-versed and knowledgeable personality like Nelson can be only be a loss for your side.
I’m sure that @pnelson will be back. We are friends. I have treated him with respect.
At times others have not. If you look at some of the exchanges this last few days, you will even see atheists coming to his defense. When you see him treated disrespectfully, it is important you flag those posts to alert @moderators. Did you do that?
Also we gave him a platform to make his case and prevented you (and others) from interfering with it. That was great respect for him.
I think the difficulty for you, not shared by @pnelson, is that it where there is disagreement, you think there is disrespect. Is that possible?
Ha. It went far beyond disagreement into actual disparaging of character. Totally uncalled for when dealing with a great mind like his. He simply does not have to endure it from this small side-show of individuals, and so he disappeared. Great for him, but I suffered personal loss when he left.
Question: why not take his review of GAE and say “Thank you. I am going to read and reread your thoughts and break it all down. That an individual like you Nelson even took the time to look over my idea and give a review, is a compliment to me and this forum. I take your pushback very seriously and I am going to consider where - that is, if - I might have failed or overlooked something and use it to possibly redirect my thinking - possibly even my life’s direction - in the future. So much appreciate your thoughts!”
What did you think of my reasoning in that response?
You may not have realized this, but I’ve had @pnelson’s review for about 2 months now. This is actually the second version of it. And I wrote my response to him about a month ago. So the conversation on the forum is a bit after the fact.
He will be back. Don’t worry. He is an off and on participant. We are on good terms.
When you see people disparaging his character you are supposed to flag the post. Did you do this? @moderators will look into it and usually we will approve flags by minorities on the forum such as yourself. You can’t really blame us for the behavior of random people on an open forum if you don’t give us a chance to correct it.
I hope not. Sounds like shuckin’ and jivin’ to me. @r_speir is more or less asking you to acknowledge Paul’s infinite, near-godlike superiority to you. You’re going to take that?
I certainly thanked him for reading the book and responding. I took his review seriously and responded with seriousness, explaining what I think he got wrong.
For the part I quoted, his phraseology is a bit over the top, but I hold that sentiment. I am thankful to @pnelson for engaging the book and bringing it to the ENV audience. I hope that he can teach me something new that would change my direction. That’s a great posture to have, and that has been the way I received his review.
However, it turns out that he misread some important things in the book, and much of his review does not make much sense. Maybe next time he will do better.
@r_speir did not say I should treat Paul as superior to me, but to treat him with respect. I’m fine with that.
The bigger issue is why he thinks I will flat out lie to him. That’s pretty extreme distrust, I wonder if it is cognition dissonance impacting his judgement.