I can understand that. It's always good to be open.

So long as it's 'not so open your brains drop out' lol

(As Dawkins says).

EvF

(September 28, 2009 at 9:36 am)Retorth Wrote: I have said this many times before, I do not make assumptions.

I have said this many times before: no one is talking about assumptions. Nor is anyone talking about blindly believing in claims regardless of who makes them. It is very weird, Retorth, that you keep objecting to things no one's talking about.

(September 28, 2009 at 9:36 am)Retorth Wrote: I believe the scientists ... All you want is a simple "yes" or "no" but it is not as simple as that.

If you believe the scientists and their findings, given the stated evidence thereof, then how is it NOT as simple as 'yes' or 'no'? How can you admit belief in the claim of scientists but not admit belief in the claim of scientists? I really don't get it, man. Sorry. Darwinian asked me if I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old (the claim of scientists). I did not feel any difficulty with providing a simple "yes" in answer, which leaves me wondering where your difficulty is stemming from.

You cut my sentence off half way.

What I said was:

Retorth Wrote:I believe the scientists who announce that fact must have the necessary data to back up a statement of such magnitude.

(September 29, 2009 at 6:45 am)Retorth Wrote: You cut my sentence off half way.

What I said was:

Retorth Wrote:I believe the scientists who announce that fact must have the necessary data to back up a statement of such magnitude.

XD Quote mining doesn't work so well in a forum, and that certainly is a big qualifier to leave out.

(September 29, 2009 at 6:45 am)Retorth Wrote: You cut my sentence off half-way ...

Yeah, for a reason. First, this is a discussion forum where your statement has either been witnessed already, usually a matter of hours ago, or can be easily verified. Second, the citation I include contains a link to your post in its entirety, making it especially easy to verify. Given these two points, I find it superfluous and unnecessary to quote a person's entire point, or the entire threaded discussion like some people here do. I simply indicate the part my response is addressing while providing a link to the original comment in its entirety so people can easily verify its context. That is not quote mining activity. Third, the feature you considered important was included and addressed in my response: "If you believe the scientists and their findings, given the stated evidence thereof, then ..."

It is possible that I misunderstood you, of course. But if that's the case, simply say so. For instance, it may be the case that although you believe the scientific claim is based on sufficient evidence ("the necessary data to back up a statement of such magnitude") you do not believe the scientific claim itself. In other words, "As for the claim that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, I believe scientists base it on the evidence necessary for such a claim. As for myself, however, I do not believe the claim." If that is the case, you could simply confirm it. Or...

... on the other hand, as my previous response supposed, it could be the case that you do believe both—that the scientific claim is based on sufficient evidence, as well as the scientific claim itself. Again, and this is the core of my response, "Darwinian asked me if I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old (the claim of scientists). I did not feel any difficulty with providing a simple 'yes' in answer, which leaves me wondering where your difficulty is stemming from." Can you provide clarity to that?