I want you to parse my words as I intend and respond on point.
Then you'll need to change your words to something more precise when that doesn't happen.
You do this more than most but you still can't seem to see points that are extremely alien to your beliefs.
No, I can't understand some of the things you write, but I disagree with your reason for that. I don't understand what it is you believe in those moments enough to compare them to my own or rebut them. That won't change unless your writing style does.
Darwin was right in terms of his assumptions. His assumptions were all wrong.
Do you think that this is intelligible? Whatever it is that you are thinking, these aren't the right words to express it. And no, I don't say that because it is " extremely alien to [my] beliefs." I say that because you've just violated a basic law of reason if we assume that these words mean to you what they do to others.
I addressed this. Somehow you must have missed it.
That was in reference to:
You: "I avoid all belief."
Me: "Except the belief that you avoid all belief, right?"
You: "No. I believe this is a fact."
I saw it (
here). You didn't address the apparent contradiction. It has the same defect as the comment above.
You've seen this before, correct: "In
logic, the
law of non-contradiction (
LNC) (also known as the
law of contradiction,
principle of non-contradiction (
PNC), or the
principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "
p is the case" and "
p is not the case" are
mutually exclusive.
Formally, this is expressed as the
tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p). The law is not to be confused with the
law of excluded middle which states that at least one, "p is the case" or "p is not the case", holds."
That means that one can't both avoid all beliefs while holding beliefs, nor call Darwin's assumptions both "right" and "all wrong." And when you do, you shouldn't expect to be understood. You ask others to assume that words make sense to those speaking or writing them, and to try to parse their probable meaning, but hopefully, you can see that that would just be guessing which of the contradictory positions you actually hold and what you meant by the other if not what it seems to say.
Please feel free to try and explain this again in a way that clearly expresses what you were trying to say, but this time, address the apparent contradiction. If you do, please let me know that you see it, that you understand why it's a problem, and what you meant to write instead using plain language.
Is it evidence that is rejected or the conclusions on that evidence?
Good point. Evidence isn't rejected. It's experienced (becomes evident as the word implies) then interpreted to times, first, what are the implications based on reason applied to prior experience (memory) and the comes any affective component (how we feel about that implication).
Recall that claims are not evidence.
Here's where I have agreed with Leroy. Claims are evidence, because they are evident. They are apprehended and usually understood. From a reliable source, they're pretty good evidence. I'm going to assume that anything you say about entomology is correct, and it will be either always, or at worst, almost always. But even from the most unreliable of sources, the claim is still evidence that somebody asserted it. Some of the claims we've been seeing from the creationists are evidence that they don't understand the science.
I would reword your comment as 'claims alone aren't evidence that the claim is correct.' Even when I say that I would believe you in your field of expertise, I have more than your claim to go by. I have prior experience with you that assures me that you are a person of character and integrity, you're well educated and know both your field and the limits of your knowledge, and therefore are unlikely to provide incorrect information.
