Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

Creationists generally use their Bibles and a literalist interpretation of it to decide which science is "right" and which is "wrong."

Unfortunately, it is correct that literalist have placed (forced?) themselves in the position of being the standard by which knowledge and the pursuit of it are to be judged.

Regarding convincing one that evolutionary science, for example, is good science, science is taught in the academic sense, not indoctrinated like religion. Whereas your pastor or Sunday school teacher expect you to believe whatever they say, and will repeat it to you often with admonitions for questioning, then ask you if you believe, and chastise you for not believing, your professor will just present evidence and arguments, test you on your knowledge of them, but never ask you if you believe the science.

As I just described, dogma comes from religions and other faith-based enterprises. Dogma is the set of ideas that one is expected to accept uncritically, which is an aspect of religion, but not science.

I consider this disparity of paradigms to have the most significant impact from the meeting of belief and acceptance on evidence and reason. Dogma says that there can be only one. Depending on which dogma it is in question.

Sorry, I had something "good" in my head and it drifted away while trying to render it to words.

What science has a community of experts who have come to their beliefs independently after reviewing evidence, often leading to consensus and a dominant narrative, but if evidence shows that that narrative needs to be revised, it will be. Often, this follows a period of resistance. Individual scientists might become rigid in their opinions and unable to move from a prior position that younger scientists can assimilate. The community of experts will come over eventually, perhaps, as Planck said it, "one funeral at a time."

It is interesting to note that the "truth felt in the bones" is the sort of thing "one funeral at a time" exists to describe and repudiate. To me, it perfectly highlights yet another contradiction when considering where that funeral comment is repeated as a mantra.

OK, but so what? Science is making progress every year moving toward whatever its potential to explain as much of reality as can be scientifically explained.

What we don't know about how nature works is relatively unimportant. We may never find a definitive path for the chemical evolution of the last universal common ancestor, but that's fine. We may never unify gravity with the other forced (seems unlikely we won't ever do that), but that's fine, too.

What we DO know, on the other hand, has changed the human condition for the better, although both government and industry have used that knowledge to make the lives of many worse.

Today, our lives are longer (vaccines, nutrition, public health, pacemakers), more functional (eyeglasses, large joint replacements), easier (dishwashers, robotic vacuums), more comfortable (air conditioning), more efficient (computers), and more interesting (Internet, jet travel)

That's not efficient for the responder. He wants to focus on a particular sentence or paragraph and so needs to isolate it from surrounding and relatively irrelevant content. If you think that you've been misrepresented by the lack of inclusion of omitted text, you can demonstrate that yourself.

You know how to do that, right? You show what was quoted, you show that next to the restored context, and if you are correct, that will show that the contextectomy did indeed lead to misrepresentation. The classic example refers to the words "there is no God" in scripture. The missing context is the first three words, "the fool says," which clearly change the meaning of the isolated phrase.

Science is knowledge. The word derives from the Latin for knowing:

View attachment 100161

Science is both a method and the body of knowledge generated to date using that method. Both evolve.

I agree here, but am wondering if you are responding to an instance of the "laying of a foundation" where science doesn't know everything, therefore, it is equal to any random, and often, baseless opinion or can be replaced with baseless opinion by default.

I could be wrong and I hope I am. But some of the content does make me wonder.

That's what an appeal to authority is, since Einstein was a scientific authority and considered an authority by many regarding all thinking, which is why he was asked to be Israel's second president in 1952. His opinion carried weight that yours and mine never have or will.

Disagree. What you call a feeling in one's bones and then visceral knowledge cannot be considered truth, knowledge, or correct. Those words can only meaningfully apply to that which is demonstrably the case. Empiricism is the only path to knowledge about how the world works and how it affects us.

What you are describing is intuition, which is notoriously unreliable as a path to truth or knowledge. It's better than ideas believed uncritically by faith, but not as good as empiricism. Pure reason is a path to mathematical truth including syllogism and the rules of inference (logic, reason), but though correct, these ideas are useless ideas until applied empirically.

I think a lot of misinformation and baseless opinion are fixed in the bones of some people. Some much, much, much more fixed than others by all accounts. In this case, I would wish a funeral for the many empty claims and leave the person more enlightened for the loss.

 

[Foxfyre]

What's not measurable or testable is not within the domain of science. You can't examine something with no features or physical attributes.

The laws, microbes and craters existed, with measurable, physical features, whether we had the physical or technological capability to examine them or not. Unlike feelings or emotions, they were always within the purview of science. When the technology became available, science examined.

Why can't we examine the gaps in the paleontological record? We can read about the latest gaps filled in with every edition of the relevant scientific journals.
Reasonable persons accept that evolution wasn't part of Earth's history?
Reasonable persons think. Their beliefs and opinions are formed by critical analysis of established facts.

A reasonable analysis of established facts, from a dozen different disciplines, strongly supports evolution. We use the techniques of evolution in medicine and agriculture all the time. We can demonstrate and observe the mechanisms of evolution. We've seen speciation happen on a human timescale.
Evolution is a firmly established fact

Science does evolve, inasmuch as it develops, grows, expands its technology and knowledge base.

When I say science 'evolves' I am saying that the science we know increases as we explore, test, wonder, and expand our knowledge and technology as we ourselves evolve. It requires giving up former beliefs and doctrines. And I believe if there are beings from other galaxies who have been visiting us, our science and technology is still in its infancy compared to theirs.

I have never questioned evolution and am quite comfortable with that theory. I only resist the assertion that evolution, or science for that matter, explains all that exists because I believe in God who created both but is bound by the constraints of neither.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My assertion is my argument. I don't require anybody agree with me but so far nobody has come up with any better argument. So oh well. Do have a lovely day.

I disagree with your argument here. An assertion is not an argument. Remaining empty and without explanation, evidence or reasoned argument to support it, the reasonable response is to ignore it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Creationists generally use their Bibles and a literalist interpretation of it to decide which science is "right" and which is "wrong."

Regarding convincing one that evolutionary science, for example, is good science, science is taught in the academic sense, not indoctrinated like religion. Whereas your pastor or Sunday school teacher expect you to believe whatever they say, and will repeat it to you often with admonitions for questioning, then ask you if you believe, and chastise you for not believing, your professor will just present evidence and arguments, test you on your knowledge of them, but never ask you if you believe the science.

As I just described, dogma comes from religions and other faith-based enterprises. Dogma is the set of ideas that one is expected to accept uncritically, which is an aspect of religion, but not science.

What science has a community of experts who have come to their beliefs independently after reviewing evidence, often leading to consensus and a dominant narrative, but if evidence shows that that narrative needs to be revised, it will be. Often, this follows a period of resistance. Individual scientists might become rigid in their opinions and unable to move from a prior position that younger scientists can assimilate. The community of experts will come over eventually, perhaps, as Planck said it, "one funeral at a time."

OK, but so what? Science is making progress every year moving toward whatever its potential to explain as much of reality as can be scientifically explained.

What we don't know about how nature works is relatively unimportant. We may never find a definitive path for the chemical evolution of the last universal common ancestor, but that's fine. We may never unify gravity with the other forced (seems unlikely we won't ever do that), but that's fine, too.

What we DO know, on the other hand, has changed the human condition for the better, although both government and industry have used that knowledge to make the lives of many worse.

Today, our lives are longer (vaccines, nutrition, public health, pacemakers), more functional (eyeglasses, large joint replacements), easier (dishwashers, robotic vacuums), more comfortable (air conditioning), more efficient (computers), and more interesting (Internet, jet travel)

That's not efficient for the responder. He wants to focus on a particular sentence or paragraph and so needs to isolate it from surrounding and relatively irrelevant content. If you think that you've been misrepresented by the lack of inclusion of omitted text, you can demonstrate that yourself.

You know how to do that, right? You show what was quoted, you show that next to the restored context, and if you are correct, that will show that the contextectomy did indeed lead to misrepresentation. The classic example refers to the words "there is no God" in scripture. The missing context is the first three words, "the fool says," which clearly change the meaning of the isolated phrase.

Science is knowledge. The word derives from the Latin for knowing:

View attachment 100161

Science is both a method and the body of knowledge generated to date using that method. Both evolve.

That's what an appeal to authority is, since Einstein was a scientific authority and considered an authority by many regarding all thinking, which is why he was asked to be Israel's second president in 1952. His opinion carried weight that yours and mine never have or will.

Disagree. What you call a feeling in one's bones and then visceral knowledge cannot be considered truth, knowledge, or correct. Those words can only meaningfully apply to that which is demonstrably the case. Empiricism is the only path to knowledge about how the world works and how it affects us.

What you are describing is intuition, which is notoriously unreliable as a path to truth or knowledge. It's better than ideas believed uncritically by faith, but not as good as empiricism. Pure reason is a path to mathematical truth including syllogism and the rules of inference (logic, reason), but though correct, these ideas are useless ideas until applied empirically.

Sorry you went to all that trouble because as I have told others, I don't respond to chopped up posts that destroy context and too often intent and become tedious and confusing to deal with. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When I say science 'evolves' I am saying that the science we know increases as we explore, test, wonder, and expand our knowledge and technology as we ourselves evolve. It requires giving up former beliefs and doctrines. And I believe if there are beings from other galaxies who have been visiting us, our science and technology is still in its infancy compared to theirs.

Didn't you say that science doesn't evolve?

I agree with your thought experiment about aliens. We are just beginning to explore and learn and there may very well be others that have gone further. In this hypothetical case, science would have evolved.

I have never questioned evolution and am quite comfortable with that theory. I only resist the assertion that evolution, or science for that matter, explains all that exists because I believe in God who created both but is bound by the constraints of neither.

I don't know of anyone here accepting and supporting science that has claimed that it is the ultimate explanation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry you went to all that trouble because as I have told others, I don't respond to chopped up posts that destroy context and too often intent and become tedious and confusing to deal with. Thanks for understanding.

Destroying context would be where parts of a post are cherry-picked and others left out. That isn't what is going on in the responses you are receiving. The context remains. The responses are just focusing on the individual parts of the posts, while retaining context.

 

[Foxfyre]

The clearest, most unambiguous way to respond to individual points in a post is to print out each point + response separately.

That can be done without chopping up other's post. But I don't make the rules or the customs or the culture here. It's certainly anybody's right to argue that way. I will also continue to ignore them as I choose not to take the time to deal with them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That can be done without chopping up other's post.

Done poorly in my opinion. Especially when a better way exists. As demonstrated.

But I don't make the rules or the customs or the culture here.

That doesn't seem to fit with the effort you have been engaged in to get the culture to fit your way.

It's certainly anybody's right to argue that way.

It is.

I will also continue to ignore them as I choose not to take the time to deal with them.

You may.

And context retained in this response.

 

[Foxfyre]

Destroying context would be where parts of a post are cherry-picked and others left out. That isn't what is going on in the responses you are receiving. The context remains. The responses are just focusing on the individual parts of the posts, while retaining context.

I don't want to have to go back to figure out how a person's response to my argument relates to my argument. For me that is tedious and way too time consuming. But those who like to do that are certainly welcome to do so. I just won't be participating in those discussions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't want to have to go back to figure out how a person's response to my argument relates to my argument. For me that is tedious and way too time consuming. But those who like to do that are certainly welcome to do so. I just won't be participating in those discussions.

Ok. You have been given good reason for the accepted practices here and shown that they do not destroy context.

If you don't personally feel you are up to following these practices and don't want to learn to, I accept that.

 

[Pogo]

As you respond to it, ggs, drop the ego. It's embarrassing

Still waiting for your disproof of evolution?
Here is an old list of things not worth bringing up as they were debunked in your childhood if not before you were born.

An Index to Creationist Claims

The whole list is too long to post so here are some subheadings

Links to Main Sections​

• CA: Philosophy and Theology
• CB: Biology
• CC: Paleontology
• CD: Geology
• CE: Astronomy and Cosmology
• CF: Physics and Mathematics
• CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution
• CH: Biblical Creationism
• CI: Intelligent Design
• CJ: Other Creationism

Expanded Outline​

• CA: Philosophy and Theology
  • CA000: Ethics
  • CA100-CA499: Epistemology
    • CA100: Foundation of Knowledge
    • CA200: Theory of Science
    • CA300-CA499: Scientific Method
  • CA600: Theology
• CB: Biology
  • CB0: Abiogenesis
  • CB100: Genetics
  • CB200: Molecular Biology
  • CB300: Physiology and Anatomy
  • CB400: Behavior and Cognition
  • CB500: Botany
  • CB600: Ecology and Population Biology
  • CB700: Developmental Biology
  • CB800: Systematics
  • CB900: Evolution
• CC: Paleontology
  • CC0: Physical Anthropology
  • CC200: Transitional fossils
  • CC300: Fossil Record
  • CC400: Methodology
• CD: Geology
  • CD0: Geochronology
  • CD100: Geological Column
  • CD200: Sedimentation
  • CD300: Evaporation
  • CD400: Glaciation
  • CD500: Mountain Building
  • CD600: Erosion
  • CD700: Geophysics and Plate Tectonics
  • CD800: Climate Change
• CE: Astronomy and Cosmology
  • CE000: Earth
  • CE100: Moon
  • CE200: Planets and Solar System
  • CE300: Sun and Stars
  • CE400: Cosmology
• CF: Physics and Mathematics
  • CF000: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory
  • CF100: First Law of Thermodynamics
  • CF200: Radiometric Decay
• CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution
  • CG000: History
  • CG100: Linguistics
  • CG200: Folklore
• CH: Biblical Creationism
  • CH000: Biblical Creationism Generally
  • CH100: Biblical Accuracy
  • CH200-CH799: Young Earth Creationism
    • CH200: Age of the Universe
    • CH300: Death and the Fall
    • CH350: Created Kinds
    • CH400-CH599: Flood
    • CH700: Miscellaneous Young Earth Creationism
  • CH800: Day-Age Creationism
  • CH900: Geocentrism
• CI: Intelligent Design
  • CI000: ID as Science
  • CI100-CI199: Detecting Design
  • CI200: First Cause.
  • CI300: Anthropic Principle.
  • CI400: Meta-arguments
• CJ: Other Creationism
  • CJ000: Vedic Creationism
  • CJ200-CJ499: Native North American Creationism
  • CJ500-CJ699: Islamic Creationism

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok. You have been given good reason for the accepted practices here and shown that they do not destroy context.

If you don't personally feel you are up to following these practices and don't want to learn to, I accept that.

It isn't that I don't want to learn. I have been doing social media and these boards longer than a lot of you have probably been alive. I know what is interesting and constructive debate for me--I don't expect anybody to agree with me but I do expect intelligent people to be able to make an argument that doesn't include ad hominem and personal insult. And I do expect those I exchange ideas and concepts with to quote me accurately and within context. But that's just me.

If you don't like my style that's fine. Just don't engage me. I won't bother you and you won't bother me. And life is good. And if everybody here likes the chopped up posts then also fine. Carry on. I will move on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It isn't that I don't want to learn. I have been doing social media and these boards longer than a lot of you have probably been alive. I know what is interesting and constructive debate for me--I don't expect anybody to agree with me but I do expect intelligent people to be able to make an argument that doesn't include ad hominem and personal insult. And I do expect those I exchange ideas and concepts with to quote me accurately and within context. But that's just me.

I've been in discussions like this for a little while.

Why do you mention ad hominem and personal insult? I have seen none rendered against you.

If you don't like my style that's fine. Just don't engage me. I won't bother you and you won't bother me. And life is good. And if everybody here likes the chopped up posts then also fine. Carry on. I will move on.

Your posting style is fine. But I will engage whom I choose and how. I recognize that if you respond or don't, it is your decision.

 

[Pogo]

No

No ....but evolution predicts a wide rage of layers in which tiktaalik could have been found .... You obviously know and agree. At this point you are just trolling

Where is this wide range? Do you mean from 400-375 million years ago? If so, so what, it also needs to be the right kind of rock that would have formed where they lived. I have 400 million year old rocks all around here but they are not from the environment Tiktaalik would have fossilized in,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It isn't that I don't want to learn. I have been doing social media and these boards longer than a lot of you have probably been alive. I know what is interesting and constructive debate for me--I don't expect anybody to agree with me but I do expect intelligent people to be able to make an argument that doesn't include ad hominem and personal insult. And I do expect those I exchange ideas and concepts with to quote me accurately and within context. But that's just me.

If you don't like my style that's fine. Just don't engage me. I won't bother you and you won't bother me. And life is good. And if everybody here likes the chopped up posts then also fine. Carry on. I will move on.

I see this line of discussion as a demand that others change for you while you demand that you should remain unchanged and unwilling to change. That you have come here with the intent to bend culture to your way without any respect or nod to the existing culture.

That you will penalize those that engage reasonably, but differently for reasons personal to you, but in no way seeming to enhance the overall discussion or avoid some nebulous loss of context.

Ah well, so it is. So it seems it must remain for some.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It isn't that I don't want to learn. I have been doing social media and these boards longer than a lot of you have probably been alive. I know what is interesting and constructive debate for me--I don't expect anybody to agree with me but I do expect intelligent people to be able to make an argument that doesn't include ad hominem and personal insult. And I do expect those I exchange ideas and concepts with to quote me accurately and within context. But that's just me.

If you don't like my style that's fine. Just don't engage me. I won't bother you and you won't bother me. And life is good. And if everybody here likes the chopped up posts then also fine. Carry on. I will move on.

I don't disagree that it can be a lot of work, annoying and difficult to jump back and forth between lengthy responses to individual points from a single post, but it can be done. Sometimes, it is the only reasonable approach to address a response.

I open up a second window to help follow along and guide my responses.

In some cases, such as this one, I can limit it to a more global response out of curtesy and brevity(?). I suppose it is an expression of curtesy and openness to meet others half way. But I see no reason to make it a personal limitation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It isn't that I don't want to learn. I have been doing social media and these boards longer than a lot of you have probably been alive. I know what is interesting and constructive debate for me--I don't expect anybody to agree with me but I do expect intelligent people to be able to make an argument that doesn't include ad hominem and personal insult. And I do expect those I exchange ideas and concepts with to quote me accurately and within context. But that's just me.

If you don't like my style that's fine. Just don't engage me. I won't bother you and you won't bother me. And life is good. And if everybody here likes the chopped up posts then also fine. Carry on. I will move on.

People come to social media for varied reasons, but coming to learn is, I think, the most important one. Often the least reason that should be the greatest.

I'm used to this response style and find response trees to be difficult to navigate for instance. But I wouldn't let that stop me from participating or inserting my own knowledge and ideas and interests. And I don't think you should either.

If you go, that is your decision, but you could stay and learn and impart what you know and develop new skills too.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That you will penalize those that engage reasonably, but differently for reasons personal to you, but in no way seeming to enhance the overall discussion or avoid some nebulous loss of context.

Is it really a penalty? It's essentially being put on ignore, and when is that ever a loss?

My assertion is my argument.

Your assertion is your claim. An argument is the series of steps from an initial premises, which might be established as correct and agreed upon or be unshared, to your conclusion, or the steps connecting your evidence to your conclusion, which might be valid or fallacious.

nobody has come up with any better argument.

But you don't have an argument if all you present is an assertion, and bare assertions don't require any comment more than, "Where's your evidenced argument". Hitchens's razor states that, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

Sorry you went to all that trouble because as I have told others, I don't respond to chopped up posts that destroy context and too often intent and become tedious and confusing to deal with. Thanks for understanding.

That's fine. Your replies would be welcome but aren't assumed or required. I'm content to write my opinions and make my arguments for the benefit of those interested in them. If that doesn't include you, that's not a problem nor a reason to modify my preference for isolating relevant text from surrounding noise.

And my trouble wasn't in vain. My target audience is people who like read comments like that one, which will be other people who like to contemplate ideas critically and maybe find merit in my take on things. How often do we have an idea held nonverbally in the backs of our heads that when we read it written out explicitly in words creates an aha moment, and gets one of those "this ^"? replies, which I understand in those terms?

I have a similar attitude to yours regarding orphan links, which means links left with no accompanying argument. I just don't bother looking at articles or videos offered as arguments rather than as support for an argument made by the poster for the reason you gave - it too often becomes tedious trying to guess which parts were of interest to the link leaver and what that person thought that they meant.

But this? I had no trouble working with your chopping of my post, for example, so I don't understand why it's a problem for you, but it apparently is, and as I said, it's fine with me if you prefer to disregard my replies to your comments.

What do you say to people who quote Bible scripture to you. They're chopping up the Bible. Do you make the same comment to them. Do you require an entire book of the Bible or perhaps the entire Bible itself? Would you even be able to tell which part they meant if they didn't narrow your focus for you by editing?

It's request that you should realize that nobody will respect. They can't if they want their words to be understood as a response to a particular idea.

Your no-chopping request reminds me of another RF poster who took offense at the phrase "drink the Kool-Aid" and asked people to stop using it because he knew somebody who knew somebody who died at Jonestown. They weren't going to do that, either, and he should have recognized that before making his comment and getting so much blow back from the gallery, who agreed that they would do that for somebody they knew who lost a loved one that way, but not otherwise.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see this line of discussion as a demand that others change for you while you demand that you should remain unchanged and unwilling to change. That you have come here with the intent to bend culture to your way without any respect or nod to the existing culture.

That you will penalize those that engage reasonably, but differently for reasons personal to you, but in no way seeming to enhance the overall discussion or avoid some nebulous loss of context.

Ah well, so it is. So it seems it must remain for some.

And there you have the ad hominem you were inquiring about. I've made no demands on anybody. You want to chop up posts. I do not. I am willing to live and let live on that point and you are accusing me of 'penalizing' you and others. I guess I'm flattered that you see my not participating in your discussions is 'penalizing' you, but I have my preferences.

I will continue to look for people who like me prefer to engage in discussion using full context. If there are none here, like I said, I will just move on. I believe in allowing people to be who and what they are. I also believe in being who and what I am.

I don't disagree that it can be a lot of work, annoying and difficult to jump back and forth between lengthy responses to individual points from a single post, but it can be done. Sometimes, it is the only reasonable approach to address a response.

I open up a second window to help follow along and guide my responses.

In some cases, such as this one, I can limit it to a more global response out of curtesy and brevity(?). I suppose it is an expression of curtesy and openness to meet others half way. But I see no reason to make it a personal limitation.

I appreciate your comments, but alas I don't have the time or patience to meet anybody half way on this issue. So I guess I'm choosing to be selfish to just look for conversations that are interesting and satisfying. Again that doesn't mean I expect others to agree with me, but I do look for people who demonstrate intellection honesty and ability to actually make an intelligent argument for their point of view. Context and intent in an argument is also important to me and I do try to respect that in another's argument including the examples and qualifications that might be included. I do require that others cite the context and content of my arguments including examples and qualifications honestly.

The topic of this thread is one that is of interest to me and I enjoy exploring the endless possibilities and concepts involved with it. But if we are incompatible in how that should be done, then oh well. Each to their own.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is it really a penalty?

I don't think so. I was recognizing the attempt to do so as a means to control the culture here. I can meet someone half way if that helps and promotes interaction. But I won't do it under threat.

It's essentially being put on ignore, and when is that ever a loss?

It is when I am the one establishing that list. But I don't see that as a loss for me.

Your assertion is your claim. An argument is the series of steps from an initial premises, which might be established as correct and agreed upon or be unshared, to your conclusion, or the steps connecting your evidence to your conclusion, which might be valid or fallacious.

But you don't have an argument if all you present is an assertion, and bare assertions don't require any comment more than, "Where's your evidenced argument". Hitchens's razor states that, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

Agreed.

That's fine. Your replies would be welcome but aren't assumed or required. I'm content to write my opinions and make my arguments for the benefit of those interested in them. If that doesn't include you, that's not a problem nor a reason to modify my preference for isolating relevant text from surrounding noise.

I hope that there is continual participation. On some things, @Foxfyre and I seem to agree. I just don't want someone dictating how things should operate or they are going to take steps in an attempt to make their operation be the operation. I also think it gives a hint to avoiding difficult questions or observations. If that is not the case, then avoiding that hint would be useful.

And my trouble wasn't in vain. My target audience is people who like read comments like that one, which will be other people who like to contemplate ideas critically and maybe find merit in my take on things. How often do we have an idea held nonverbally in the backs of our heads that when we read it written out explicitly in words creates an aha moment, and gets one of those "this ^"? replies, which I understand in those terms?

It was a very useful post to me. But I imagine you figured that out.

I have a similar attitude to yours regarding orphan links, which means links left with no accompanying argument. I just don't bother looking at articles or videos offered as arguments rather than as support for an argument made by the poster for the reason you gave - it too often becomes tedious trying to guess which parts were of interest to the link leaver and what that person thought that they meant.

I so dislike the dumping of long Youtube videos in lieu of a meaningful response. At the very least the application of a brief summary and commentary that highlights the significant portion of the video that applies to the subject and how.

But this? I had no trouble working with your chopping of my post, for example, so I don't understand why it's a problem for you, but it apparently is, and as I said, it's fine with me if you prefer to disregard my replies to your comments.

What do you say to people who quote Bible scripture to you. They're chopping up the Bible. Do you make the same comment to them. Do you require an entire book of the Bible or perhaps the entire Bible itself? Would you even be able to tell which part they meant if they didn't narrow your focus for you by editing?

Nice. An excellent argument applicable to any quoted material.

It's request that you should realize that nobody will respect. They can't if they want their words to be understood as a response to a particular idea.

An not out of malice, disdain or a lack of respect, but for the reason you highlight. To understand and be understood. To focus on particular points that others find useful and needful to focus on.

I don't mind addressing this as requested if I choose to and see that it is the most useful and expedient means to respond. But out of choice and not out of demand. To me, that seems to reflect the very lack of respect, curtesy and disambiguation that seem to be cited as reasons such posts will be ignored.

Your no-chopping request reminds me of another RF poster who took offense at the phrase "drink the Kool-Aid" and asked people to stop using it because he knew somebody who knew somebody who died at Jonestown. They weren't going to do that, either, and he should have recognized that before making his comment and getting so much blow back from the gallery, who agreed that they would do that for somebody they knew who lost a loved one that way, but not for the acquaintances of such people like him.

I might construct my responses to someone with that back story out of curtesy if it seemed fitting, but I'm not going to stop using an expression simply on the whim and demands of others that indicate no reciprocal effort.