Thanks, ikester7579, for telling me part of what got you so upset. If it makes any difference, I'll apologize for any insult you felt I used, as this was not, is not, my intent.
So was RADZ saying things about flat earth have to do anything with any thread? Does Radz saying that Elvis lives and creationists believe stuff like that have anything to do with any subject of any thread here?
The problem is, that this is your
reading, and NOT what the words say.
Here is the actual quote (bold and italic added for emphasis):
I fully agree that any valid explanation must account for all of the evidence, not just cherry picked talking points, and that any explanation that avoids evidence that contradicts it is not just invalid but can be delusional.de·lu·sion –noun
1.
... a. The act or process of deluding.
... b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
(American Heritage Dictionary 2008)
There is no implication that this necessarily applies to creationists or that evolutionists would be excluded. There is not even any need for it to be delusional rather than just based on incomplete information (hence the "can be" rather that "is")
And when you responded with what you felt qualified, I did not scream in outrage,
I said (bold and italic added for emphasis):
I agree that this applies to anyone who holds on to strongly held beliefs in spite of being provided with evidence that contradicts that belief. Doesn't matter whether that belief is that the earth is flat or that elvis still lives. You don't need to take it personally, you don't need to see if the shoe fits, all we are doing is discussing the evidence and how various concepts can or cannot explain the evidence. If we apply the scientific method and discard concepts that are invalidated, then this should not be a problem.
Do you think that creationists are the only ones holding strong beliefs? Of course not.
Are you saying that you cannot apply the scientific method and discard falsified concepts? Somehow I don't think that is the problem.
Note that these are two places (among several) where I was
agreeing with you. I see no need to respond in kind to your
ad hominem replies, btw. You don't know me, I don't know you.
I just note that, for the record, such personal attacks are no reply to the evidence that shows:
(a) that the erosion of the walls of the Grand Canyon cannot be explained by (1) biblical flood flows carving the canyon plus (2) later vertical only erosion caused by rain water, as there are too many places where they occur in multiple alternate layers.
(b) that the canyon cuts across the ridge at a point on the ridge higher than areas north and south along the ridge.
(c) that the erosion of sedimentary layers perfectly aligned with the layers will be caused by any agent that removes material from the rock, due to the different density and chemical bonds of the different layers.
(d) that some areas in the canyon do have tilted erosion patterns, also perfectly aligned with the sedimentary layers of those rocks.
(e) that slow erosion would carry the sedimentary debris away slowly, just as it does today, and would make no more impact on the surrounding areas downstream that the river does today.
(f) that there are many formations in the canyon that are not consistent with flood flow.
(g) that almost all characteristics of flood flow are absent from the Grand Canyon.
(h) that the geological explanation of the Grand Canyon can, and does, explain all the evidence for all the different formations we see throughout the Grand Canyon.
Reality is unimpressed by opinion and emotion. Reality is what it is, and this is a hard lesson for scientists and anyone else that wants to understand what reality is.
The best tool is an open mind, not one that shuts off debate about inconvenient truths.
Enjoy.
