Search This Blog

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Evolution, Morowitz and here we go again!

One commenter asked if I had quit posting about evolution versus creation because of the "Morowitz fiasco." I don't think it is really a fiasco for Morowitz, just an embarrassment. He made calculations that made evolution look highly unlikely and later on tried to back away from the obvious conclusions. Uncomfortable would be a better word, I think.

No, I didn't quit because of that...I just got sicker and sicker and about that time realized that arguing over probabilities was rather useless. Those who reject God as creator can also postulate infinite universes in which infinite possibilities could exist. So the debate needs to center around evidences extant in the real world.

Once again, studying the rock formations of the Western UP I was impressed by how obvious it was that the layering had been formed by massive flows of water. The picture shows Nathan standing on an outcropping of sandstone/mudstone in which are buried rounded rocks like the mixture of granites/igneous rocks found along the shores of Lake Superior. You can see clearly that depths of rock that supposedly represent millions of years were actually one layer of some kind of flood event, with the rock and the buried megabraccia consistent throughout. The buried stones are all rounded like those found along the lakeshore, rounded by the action of the water. I cannot see a likely evolution-friendly scenario for these layers.

We have collected rocks from the Pacific Islands, both oceans that border the continental United States, and from the US and Canada. Many are fossils but most are various sedimentary and igneous rocks that were simply interesting and many of them pretty large. This trip we collected more smaller ones and intend to begin rock tumbling and polishing the smaller ones.




We determined that a vibratory rock tumbler, which polishes faster without overly rounding the rocks, was the way to go and we ordered one right after arriving back home. I'll be sure to keep you posted about that.

Anyway, evolutionists out there, how in the heck did stones ranging from fist-to-thimble sizes get suspended within sandstone flows, sometimes in layers several feet thick? How did such rocks get rounded without the action of water? I await answers...

32 comments:

scohen said...

"Anyway, evolutionists out there, how in the heck did stones ranging from fist-to-thimble sizes get suspended within sandstone flows, sometimes in layers several feet thick? How did such rocks get rounded without the action of water?"

Sounds like a question for geologists, not evolutionists. Considering that I have no training in Geology I'd suggest you call someone at your local university to find out. Failing that, some research at a library would do wonders if you're actually curious.

-scohen
P.S. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the rock formations you saw were worn away by the river, which you interpret as a flood. That's just a guess though.

Anonymous said...

Hey Radar - Jeff/Ucaimaman here. Haven't visited your site for a while. You do a good job - too bad we are so apart ideologically! I am a conservative turned liberal, a evolutionist engineer (can't even believe there is anything to debate!) who is believes there is likely a God but certainly not one owned by the Christians, I am quite anti-Israeli and believe the US should cut all support to Israel if we want to end the conflict and, finally, someone who adamently believes GW Bush is the worst US President in the past 45 years. But, on the bright side, I do not believe in global warming.

creeper said...

Evolutionists? Presumably you mean old-earthers of all stripes and colors, including old-earth creationists and IDers, no? Because the subject of your post has zip to do with evolution.

Like scohen, I'm no expert on geology. Actually, I'm not really sure what it is you're getting at. Are you suggesting that because there are rounded stones in the sediment, that it must have been caused by a flood?

If anything, the fact that they are rounded seems to me to speak for long periods of time, not short ones. How long does it take to round a stone in water, rubbing up against other stones? Is this something that could happen in a global flood in less than a year? Or does it take thousands and thousands of years?

"You can see clearly that depths of rock that supposedly represent millions of years were actually one layer of some kind of flood event, with the rock and the buried megabraccia consistent throughout."

Perhaps a geologist could analyze the section in question for you. Is the particular section you were looking at really supposed to represent millions of years, or did you just make that up?

And if it does happen to represent millions of years, then which specific changes should we see represented in those layers? Are they represented?

Seems to me like an awfully vague assertion to hang a post on, Radar.

Middle_America said...

So basically, no-one can answer you Radar.

radar said...

I have to admit some of those who are evolutionists concentrate on the biological aspects and do not dwell much on the evidence in the rock layers. That being said, I have noticed in my online searches that most universities seem to keep teaching the long ages - ancient oceans garbage and are completely clueless about the actual rock formations that show all the earmarks of rapid formation. So I don't suppose I am likely to get much of a response.

Part of the problem is that it is difficult to imagine a year-long world wide flood with ice ages occurring immediately thereafter with further erosion and layering as a result of that as well. Layers from the flood, the run-off of the flood and the ice ages are all reflected in the rocks.

radar said...

Jeff, by the way, in your field you have undoubtably noticed by now that all oil fields are pressurized and yet if they had been there for millions of years the pressure would have been gone by now?

IAMB said...

I'm going to try to answer as best I can with my meager training in geology...

First off, the layers in question were likely formed in water, but that does not necessarily indicate a big flood at all, since there's a river right there and rivers tend to erode their way down. It's likely that the sediments were deposited by the same river that you see in the background of the picture.

The rounded stones found within the sedimentary deposits were also likely to have been smoothed by that same body of water, as wind creates different shapes than water (Arches in Utah for example), but because they are within the layers they are likely far older than the layers themselves and were simply buried in sediment during high runoff seasons. We see larger stones buried in mud on lakeshores and river edges all the time... why should this be unexpected?

There is also no reason to conclude without an actual dating test that the layers you can see are millions of years worth or if they come from several different events. however, you can tell whether the layers were formed in one event or over the course of several. This is fairly easy when you have a situation involving moving water, as the water will sort the sediments based on density. If the layers in question show steadily decreasing density from bottom to top with very few exceptions (a few are okay but we're looking at the formation as a whole) it is likely that the entire thing was formed in one event. However, if the layers vary as you go from bottom to top (such as dense, mid, dense, light, dense, mid, light, mid) what you're looking at took more than one event to form.

Also remember: before man-made controls (dams, for example) flooding was a fact of life around pretty much any river, so flood deposits are nothing out of the ordinary at all.

There is nothing that says certain formations can't be rapidly formed. Some can be. Some, however, take time... a lot of time.

As for oil field pressures, if the rock were permeable enough for the pressure to leak off, it would never have been there in the first place. That claim is an old Hovind one... one which, like many of his, he makes without any support whatsoever. Unfortunately people would rather believe him than the geologists who actually study oil and gas reservoirs for a living. Ask one sometime... they'd tell you the claim is bunk just as I have.

radar said...

IAMB - there are some saltwater fossils within the layers I was discussing and have pictured, which precludes them being produced by the river. (Debbie found a scallop - like shell. We were sorry to find no new trilobites this trip, however!) Also, since the river is not only running through, but also on top of the same kinds of rock layers it is demonstrably a body of water that came after the rock was first laid. If you go there and look around you will see what I mean. Those rock formations aren't specific to the river bed but are regional.

The oil pressure - Hovind thing is interesting, I will go look into that. It is a sad-but-truth that one has to take everything Hovind says with a grain of salt and sometimes, an entire shaker!

The smoothed rocks - I can smooth rocks like that in a tumbler in a matter of days or use a grinder and do it in minutes. Were they smoothed by the flood and then caught up in a runoff flow, thus being distributed within one layered section of the entire sandstone formation? Were they smoothed in a antediluvian lake much like Superior and mixed in the flow of sand and dirt during the flood itself? Creationists have questions that require answers, too.

It is also interesting that the southeast shore point of Superior in that area has almost nothing but smoothed stones rather than sand on the beaches. They are like the stones found in the rock formations we observed, only more rounded still. The rocks in the formations have rounded edges, but the rocks on the lakeshore often resemble eggs or even balls!

creeper said...

"there are some saltwater fossils within the layers I was discussing and have pictured, which precludes them being produced by the river."

What kind of "saltwater fossils" did you find?

There's a summary of the geological history of the region here, if you're interested. Plenty more can be found by googling "geological history of the upper peninsula of michigan" - instead of pretending this has something to do with "evolutionism".

Amy Proctor said...

The evolution debate is over my head, although I am endeavoring to educate myself as much as I can on the subject. Science starts, in this occassion, at the results and works backwards, which is why historically it has had to correct itself so many times.

Anon, no one owns God. Christians just happen to have the inside scoop. I'm frankly astounded at any so called compassionate person who wouldn't support Israel. These people have been persecuted for thousands of years and they don't deserve a home where they can congegate? Why not? Israel belonged to the Jews until they were forced out in 71 AD. If you were forced out of your home and other people took it over, would it still be yours?

creeper said...

Amy,

"Science starts, in this occassion, at the results and works backwards, which is why historically it has had to correct itself so many times."

Like you said yourself, you need to educate yourself on the subject. A lot.

radar said...

Creeper, I have read up on the so-called history of the region and it doesn't really address my statements. The actual makeup of the rocks are ignored and a nice story has been accepted to take the place of investigation and science, IMO.

creeper said...

Radar,

"I have read up on the so-called history of the region and it doesn't really address my statements."

It does address your question as to the area once having been submerged, leading to the kind of phenomena you witnessed: rounded stones in abundance, including stuck in sandy deposits.

Which statement of yours did you think went unaddressed?

"The actual makeup of the rocks are ignored and a nice story has been accepted to take the place of investigation and science, IMO."

The actual makeup of the rocks is addressed exactly by what you said originally: the area was once submerged in water.

Did you really think it was that "nice" a story? I thought it was a bit convoluted and difficult to follow myself. It is, on the other hand, based on science and an actual investigation of the area. Unlike your imposing a global flood scenario, which would not explain the successive shorelines that have been mapped in the area.

The "nice story" in question is of course Noah and his Ark, which remains unsupported by investigation and science.

scohen said...

"If you were forced out of your home and other people took it over, would it still be yours?"

The answer, of course is 'no' unless you advocate giving the United States back to the Native Americans. They were kicked out of their home much more recently than AD 71.

As a Jew, I can tell you that I have much more affinity to the United States than I do towards Israel. I don't consider Israel my home any more than I do Eastern Europe. Frankly, the whole issue of Israel is much more complex and nuanced than any coverage I've seen from the hard right religious blogs (imagine that!) and your lack of understanding of the issue is frightening given your unflinching support of Israel. Don't flag me as a palestinian supporter either --they could have ended this whole thing years ago if they adopted non-violent protest methods. Similarly, they could have a state by now if they elected someone reasonable insted of Arafat, so I don't cry for them much either. I do feel for the people caught in the middle, which is more than I can say for you from reading your blog.

Yet I ask why would you bring this up? Politics has nothing to do with the evolution 'debate' and if you think it does, you have a LOT of education left. I wonder what exactly you are doing to educate yourself? Are you reading creationist literature so you can more 'effectively' argue, or are you exposing yourself to modern research on evolutionary biology, genetics or evolutionary development? There's a big difference between the two approaches. In fact, I'd say one of them isn't education at all.

And Radar: Go. To. A. University. And. Talk. With. A. Geologist. Doing web searches isn't the same thing as having a conversation.

"I have noticed in my online searches that most universities seem to keep teaching the long ages"

Imagine that.

Finally, you're still wrong on Morowitz, he never used statistics to argue against evolution, and the fact that you couldn't provide either the name of his paper from which you quoted or an in-context quote from it saying differently should make you realize that you should either admit your error or drop the whole thing entirely. Once again, Morowitz's email is publicly available and if you wanted to know the truth, all you would have to do is ask him.

It speaks volumes that you don't.

-scohen

radar said...

"Finally, you're still wrong on Morowitz, he never used statistics to argue against evolution, and the fact that you couldn't provide either the name of his paper from which you quoted or an in-context quote from it saying differently should make you realize that you should either admit your error or drop the whole thing entirely. Once again, Morowitz's email is publicly available and if you wanted to know the truth, all you would have to do is ask him." - scohen

No, I am right. I simply got deathly ill and dropped that subject along with several other ones. I am demonstrably alive now and I suppose I can find that thread with a bit of research so I will find it. It speaks for itself, as I recall. I don't care if Morowitz has backtracked after the fact, it has no bearing on his thinking or his math at the time.

creeper said...

Radar,

"completely clueless about the actual rock formations that show all the earmarks of rapid formation"

You are aware that an old Earth does not preclude rapid* formations... aren't you?

(* in geological time)

radar said...

Creeper, do you realize that if modern geologists are to be believed, the entire earth was once under water??? They believe that different areas were under water at different times and that as one part went under, another part rose. This is how they explain the sedimentary rock layers that are found everywhere around the world now, since uniformitarianism has been shown to be silly.

The whole earth under water is explained more reasonably by the flood.

creeper said...

"Yet I ask why would you bring this up? Politics has nothing to do with the evolution 'debate' and if you think it does, you have a LOT of education left."

In all fairness, scohen, that subject was dragged into this thread apropos of nothing by anonymous Jeff/Ucaimaman upthread - the second comment from the top.

radar said...

scohen, why not explain your views on Israel? I would love to know why you think the issue is so complicated?

creeper said...

Radar,

"Creeper, do you realize that if modern geologists are to be believed, the entire earth was once under water???"

If that's true.... so what?

"They believe that different areas were under water at different times and that as one part went under, another part rose."

The problem with this would be what exactly?

"This is how they explain the sedimentary rock layers that are found everywhere around the world now, since uniformitarianism has been shown to be silly."

When and where was this shown? I'm pretty sure we've covered this ground before, and it was shown to you at great length that uniformitarianism is far from discredited: Today, however, most if not all mainstream scientists support uniformitarianism as do most mainstream religious denominations.

Silly people.

"The whole earth under water is explained more reasonably by the flood."

In what way is that more reasonable exactly?

The old earth/evolution scenario makes falsifiable predictions that a YEC/global flood scenario simply can not explain and would consider impossible. The global flood scenario yields no falsifiable predictions.

creeper said...

Radar,

"They believe that different areas were under water at different times and that as one part went under, another part rose. This is how they explain the sedimentary rock layers that are found everywhere around the world now, since uniformitarianism has been shown to be silly."

Just out of curiosity, where do you see the incompatibility between uniformitarianism and areas of land rising and falling over time?

radar said...

"They believe that different areas were under water at different times and that as one part went under, another part rose. This is how they explain the sedimentary rock layers that are found everywhere around the world now, since uniformitarianism has been shown to be silly."

Just out of curiosity, where do you see the incompatibility between uniformitarianism and areas of land rising and falling over time?


This is great! After I thought the evolutionists had admitted that uniformitarianism was not taught, here it comes again!

The problem is that these rock layers are all given certain dates of association - yet they couldn't all be formed during the same era unless they were all underwater at that time. So how do they get the same dates???

Second, the layers almost always have earmarks of rapid formation.

Third, the layers sometimes are flip-flopped or otherwise out of order, explicable in one flood event, inexplicable in uniformitarian terms.

Fourth, rocks layers supposedly taking millions of years to form are often found twisted like taffy. If the twisting occurred shortly after formation, before hardening, one could understand it. But then the rocks couldn't be millions of years old.

There is more, I did a lot of posting on this earlier, you are bringing up previously refuted points, IMO

scohen said...

"No, I am right. I simply got deathly ill and dropped that subject along with several other ones. I am demonstrably alive now and I suppose I can find that thread with a bit of research so I will find it. It speaks for itself, as I recall. I don't care if Morowitz has backtracked after the fact, it has no bearing on his thinking or his math at the time."

No, you are not. He has not backtracked or changed his opinion or any such thing. You have a single quote --out of any context, I might add, that you cannot attribute to any specific paper of his. How can you say that he backtracked or changed his position when you don't even know what the original position was? You have two options here, cite the paper and allow us to read it and draw conclusions, or concede your point. If you don't give us the name or publication date of the paper, how can you truthfully make a statement like: "I don't care if Morowitz has backtracked after the fact" since you don't know which came first, the paper you quoted or the trial that Dan and I found?

Want to clear this up?
1. Cite the paper, give us its title and publication date and where it was published.

2. Contact Morowitz, show him your quote and ask how he can square that with the record from the trial.


"scohen, why not explain your views on Israel?"

Carpal Tunnel, mostly. Suffice it to say that the original mistake was made in 1948 when Israel didn't let the palestinians become citizens of Israel due to strident complaints by orthodox Jews who were worried that the palestinians would outnumber jews in the near future. I guess democracy was a secondary concern for them. Now, you're dealing with myriad of problems, some so pedestrian as water usage and zoning variances. What really tears me up about the middle east is that it doesn't seem that sanity is guiding either side. Right when one side seems ready to deal, the other makes a turn for crazytown (Hamaas elections? Electing Ariel Sharon? Rabin's murder by a Jew? Hizbollah's recent craziness.). It's a tragedy played out over the past 50 years. Oh, and the seething hate that both sides exhibit. I've been there, I've seen it, experienced it, and it offends me as a human being. Also, this doesn't seem the time or place to talk about Israel.

-scohen

radar said...

Concerning Morowitz, I am working on a post for today.

Concerning Israel, why would that subject be off-limits? Also, my understanding of the early days of Israel must be different. The Palestinians were offered citizenship but radical anti-zionists threatened all Palestinian non-Jews with death if they did not leave Israel and then subsequently attack it with the purpose of wiping it off the map.

highboy said...

The most "compelling" argument I've heard regarding Israel and Palestine is that the Palestinians were there first. So what? What sacred property rights to the Palestinians have to land, except "We were here first?" Please. Its not complicated at all. Hezbollah wants to blow Israel off the map. As long as they remain in Palestine, shooting rocket after rocket from the border, Israel is going to wipe them out, and rightly so. The U.S. should take a lesson from Israel as it pertains to the war on terror.

scohen said...

"Concerning Israel, why would that subject be off-limits? "

We're talking about evolution (well, I'm talking about evolution, you're talking about geology), and my hands are on fire.
Also, I'm a stupid liberal, so why would you even care what I think? You've already discounted my beliefs with your trollish post, so there's not much point, is there? You'd rather quote Amy Proctor, who, and I'm being generous here, knows so little about the whole conflict that reading her posts filled with child-like analogies would be funny, if it weren't for the fact that people actually listen to her. That alone makes me want to cry. Then again, that's what I feel about most of her posts, but hey, what would I know? I'm stupid.

I hope thinking that makes you sleep better.

P.S. At least I'm not dishonest, I see how you cherry-picked the Morowitz quote to make it look like he just doesn't agree with statistical arguments because, as you put it, "he doesn't like the results". Nice job. Why didn't you put in the next line from the document, where he clearly explains why he thinks it is deceptive? What does the bible say about bearing false witness again?

P.P.S: Tim:
"Please. Its not complicated at all."

Nothing ever is in your little black and white world, is it? It must be fun to deem yourself able to speak on subjects on which you have absolutely zero knowledge and claim that they're not complex. Sometimes, I envy your simplistic take on the world where a couple of bombs and jet strikes solve all problems. Most of the time, however, I just wish you'd read a book or two.

-scohen

highboy said...

"It must be fun to deem yourself able to speak on subjects on which you have absolutely zero knowledge and claim that they're not complex. Sometimes, I envy your simplistic take on the world where a couple of bombs and jet strikes solve all problems. Most of the time, however, I just wish you'd read a book or two."

First of all, I know people from the area, and my knowledge is pretty good. Even if that weren't the case, its not as complicated as the leftist crowd tries to make it. A couple of bombs and jet strikes may not solve all problems, but RESOLVE in what is right and wrong certainly can. Terrorism is evil, and neither Israel OR Palestine are safe with that group in the world. Maybe Palestine should look at that when they condemn Israel for their "vicious" attacks.

I actually envy your world, where terrorism is justified and the good guys are the enemy. Then again, maybe I don't.

creeper said...

"I actually envy your world, where terrorism is justified and the good guys are the enemy."

Ha! Now that is squeezing scohen's utterances on the subject back into a black-and-white world: "Don't flag me as a palestinian supporter either --they could have ended this whole thing years ago if they adopted non-violent protest methods. Similarly, they could have a state by now if they elected someone reasonable insted of Arafat, so I don't cry for them much either."

creeper said...

Radar:

creeper: "Just out of curiosity, where do you see the incompatibility between uniformitarianism and areas of land rising and falling over time?"

radar: "This is great! After I thought the evolutionists had admitted that uniformitarianism was not taught, here it comes again!"


I can't find any reference on your blog where the subject of uniformitarianism not being taught was an issue, let alone being admitted by "evolutionists". If this is a semantic quibble about how uniformitarianism took on board the existence of catastrophic events (i.e. that uniformitarianism refers to spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws, not uniform rates of change) over a 100 years ago, then that does not add up to "uniformitarianism being debunked" or "uniformitarianism not being taught" - that would only apply to "uniformitarianism exactly as Lyell saw it". Look up uniformitarianism in a dictionary.

This was brought up on your blog quite some time ago: radar: "Now that Uniformitarianism is being challenged and discarded"

anonymous: "This is a misunderstanding. Uniformitarianism - the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present" - is not being discarded. What has been discarded - for quite some time - is a specific version, a sort of vulgar uniformatism, which holds that events occur onlyin a steady and gradual manner, like a sort of endless English summer. Interestingly, the pioneers of uniformitarianism did not seem to hold this view:
"Note, however, that many "catastrophic" events are perfectly compatible with uniformitarianism. For example, Charles Lyell thought that ordinary geological processes would cause Niagara Falls to move upstream to Lake Erie within 10000 years, leading to catastrophic flooding of a large part of North America."


It would be like, say, criticizing the theory of evolution purely on the basis of what Darwin came up with, misinterpreting that, and disregarding any subsequent advances in understanding (which, come to think of it, actually is an occasional fetish of the anti-science crowd.)

Anyway, this was a rather obvious and not particularly elegant way of dodging the question: where do you see the incompatibility between uniformitarianism and areas of land rising and falling over time?

"The problem is that these rock layers are all given certain dates of association - yet they couldn't all be formed during the same era unless they were all underwater at that time. So how do they get the same dates???"

I have no idea what you're referring to here. Are you saying that rock layers dated to a time when they couldn't have been subject to rapid formation show evidence of rapid formation, and/or rock layers that are dated to a time when they would have been subject to rapid formation show no evidence of rapid formation?

Examples?

"Second, the layers almost always have earmarks of rapid formation."

What, all layers everywhere?

"Third, the layers sometimes are flip-flopped or otherwise out of order, explicable in one flood event, inexplicable in uniformitarian terms."

On the contrary, a catastropic event as brief as a global flood lasting less than a year wouldn't have had enough time to both let the layers settle recognizably and harden sufficiently and flip-flop them.

"Fourth, rocks layers supposedly taking millions of years to form are often found twisted like taffy. If the twisting occurred shortly after formation, before hardening, one could understand it. But then the rocks couldn't be millions of years old."

1. Not all rock formations need to have taken millions of years to form. You are aware that uniformitarianism does not preclude relatively rapid formations... aren't you?

2. For geological forces to shape layers of rock over geological time, the matter doesn't need to be particularly soft. Name an example of a formation that couldn't have been formed in an old-age scenario.

"There is more, I did a lot of posting on this earlier, you are bringing up previously refuted points, IMO"

I didn't see any that were refuted in your favor.

scohen said...

"I actually envy your world, where terrorism is justified and the good guys are the enemy. Then again, maybe I don't."

Where did I say that? That is *exactly* the problem with your binary thinking. It's so useless in the real world. Isn't it possible that both sides are wrong?

-scohen

highboy said...

"here did I say that? That is *exactly* the problem with your binary thinking. It's so useless in the real world. Isn't it possible that both sides are wrong?"

You don't side with Israel, you don't side with Palestine. Its only logical to conclude you side with the Hezbollah terrorists, unless you will now say all three are wrong? If so, I can understand the position. But to say that Israel should not be attacking Hezbollah is in fact siding with the terrorists. Dead people don't shoot at you, and don't give me that crap about "the more we kill, the more we make." That is useless, baseless, liberal talking point speculation, and the only alternative is to give terrorists what they want, and if you actually believe that will STOP the bloodshed, you live in fantasy land.

Btw, my "binary thinking" (black and white) helped rid our country of slavery, communism, (or so it seemed) and numerous other evils.

scohen said...

"Its only logical to conclude you side with the Hezbollah terrorists"

No, it's not, especially since I said I don't. It's only logical if you have a child-like notion that there are only two sides to every opinion, in which case, it's not so much logic, but lack of intellectual complexity.

"the more we kill, the more we make."

That's a gross misrepresentation of that argument, which I believe is best summarized by poverty + hopelessness + militant fundamentalist religion = terrorism.

The fact is, Tim, in case you haven't been paying any attention these past 50 years,is that the hard line that Israel sometimes takes with the palestinians begets more violence. Treating them as humans and as citizens and giving them access to the Israeli way of life might change more than any number of bombs could. It's a shame that that ship sailed so many years ago, and not for Radar's laughably mistaken reason. It's also a shame that the palestinians pick leaders who only care about enriching themselves while appearing to support the 'people'. The only consistency in palestinian leadership seems to be their uncanny ability to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

"Btw, my "binary thinking" (black and white) helped rid our country of slavery, communism, (or so it seemed) and numerous other evils."

Your binary thinking did no such thing. Do you think I don't consider slavery 100% wrong, or communism an unworkable system? I believe that in other comments, I said that slavery was always wrong, while you made exceptions for 'biblical slavery' because Jesus never condemned it. You seem to be arguing with my mythical component, Strawman Scohen. Feel free to do so, as he is an easy opponent, given that he doesn't actually exist.

Furthermore, binary thinking would not and will never change anything because it's immune to conversation and reasonable discussion. There was a point where most people thought that slavery was right, and by the logic of binary thinking, it was, and could never be challenged.

-scohen