User:Skookumplanet

Landscape artist/writer, science aficianado since grade school [a loooong time ago]. Live in San Francisco Bay area.

Please put comments on discussion page.

...So-called Truthteller
TruthTeller [henceforth "TT"] presents a challenge to the Wikipedia process I've yet found mentioned or appreciated. As a newbie [my second post] I may be off-base about the Wiki-process, but tracking down process questions is difficult due to the quantity of work here -- in itself positive. I hope the length of this is justified -- said length itself demonstrating the potential obstacle.

I'm professionally familiar with TT-type argument, and after reflecting on TT's comments in talk:Dinosaurs, I want to share my insights with those who waded through TT's disturbing pattern of repetitious criticism, wild speculation [e.g., scientists abandoning evolution], scripted monologue, intentional distortions and falsifications, and failure to admit error. Allowing the creationist/ID crowd to focus on their apparent, versus actual, topic [science, versus politics] means, ultimately, they win and science loses.

Since I practically live on top it, for my small bit of evidentiary material I'll use TT's San Andreas paragraph in about:Truthteller and it's link, a technique TT excessively uses, out of Wikipedia. The bracketed notations will be explained after the quoted passages and the analysis.

From near the top of User:Truthteller --

"Why I Do NOT believe the Earth is Billions of Years Old

"Contrary to the beliefs of some, the age of the Earth has not been scientifically proven to be "millions" or "billions" of years old.''

"In fact there are many [A-1,D-1] other scientifically valid techniques [A-2,B-1,C-1,D-2,G-1,I-1] which yield [H-2] very young ages for the Earth, Solar System, and Universe [B-2,C-2,F-1,G-2,I-2]. For example, [I-3] there is very good [C-3,D-3,F-2,H-3] evidence [A-3,D-4,F-3] that the San Andreas Fault  [<-- link to http://www.earthage.org/continentaldrft/continental_drift.htm from which the following paragraph is the only San Andreas information] is less than 5,000 years old." [A-4,D-5,F-4,H-4,I-4]

"The San Andreas Fault: The evidence [D-6,F-5,I-5] seems to suggest that the plates [G-3] along San Andreas Fault have only been moving [E-1,H-5,I-6] for a few thousand years at most [C-4,F-6,I-7]. This can be observed by looking at a map [A-5,B-3,C-5,E-2,F-7,H-6] of the San Andreas fault, area[H-7,E-3] near Point Reyes, California, where the fault [A-6,C-6,E-4] runs directly through [A-7,C-7,E-5,I-8] two peninsulas (Sand Point and Toms Point); however, neither of these peninsulas appear [B-4,D-7,E-6,G-4,I-9] offset at all. (17) [B-5,C-8,E-7,G-5,I-10] Furthermore, since these plates [H-8] (presently) move at the rate of one to two inches per year [E-8,G-6,H-9,I-11], if we assume [E-9,H-10] that this has been going on for (only) the past 10,000 years [E-10,F-8,H-11], then these two peninsulas should be offset by more than 1/4 mile [B-6,C-9,E-11,H-12]. However we don't observe [A-8,C-1,E-12,G-7,I-12] even the slightest offset [A-9,E-13,H-13,I-13] ''of these peninsulas on the map. This strongly suggests [D-8,H-14,I-14] ''that the San Andreas fault is quite young (probably less than 5,000 years old) [E-14,F-9,I-15]. It also is an indication that the continents themselves are young [E-15,F-10,H-15,I-16] ''as well. The diagram below [A-10,B-7,C-11,E-16] illustrates this point'' [A-11,G-8,I-17]."

[TT's original map placement here]...

17) Geology of the Point Reyes Peninsula, Marin County, CA, Bulletin 202, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA 1977, by Allan J. Galloway, pp. 22-23; map is included with Bulletin.

_________________________________________

Let me now annotate those two paragraphs:

"... In fact there are many -- No, there are not. If there were, why choose a single falsified example and make deceptive rhetorical arguments from it.

"... other scientifically valid techniques -- nothing TT does or says downstream is "scientific" -- it's all rhetorical -- therefore it's not "valid" in that domain. There is a "technique" involved, however: falsification of data.

... which yield -- You can't derive something valid from a falsification. GIGO.

... very young ages for the Earth, Solar System, and Universe. -- nothing that follows presents ANY evidence for this. Zero.

... For example, -- remember, what TT follows this with is a proxy, as it were, for proof the universe, et.al., are circa 5,000 years old.

... there is very good -- consider if anything below constitutes "very good".

... evidence -- you can't call a single, falsely cited reference as evidence, let alone "very good" evidence.

... that the San Andreas Fault is less than 5,000 years old. -- TT presents no evidence for this. This is a technique advertisers frequently use: present a simple message repeatedly, surrounded by ancillary "supporting" material. But the desired take-away is not the argument, but the key, simple message.

"... The San Andreas Fault: The evidence -- one item, only, and it is a reference, not evidence.

... seems to suggest that the plates  -- TT never mentions which plates are involved, nor the nature of their movements, both important. [About 175 miles north of TT's map, beginning off Cape Mendocino and the mouth of the beautiful Mattole River, a third plate, the Gordo plate, is being smashed and consumed between the two large plates, the Pacific and the North American. A few weeks ago there was a 7.0 quake from mid-Gordo-plate and, briefly, a tsunami warning.]

... along the San Andreas Fault have only been moving -- TT makes no attempt whatsoever to show evidence that they ARE moving.

''... for a few thousand years at most. This can be observed by looking at a map of the San Andreas fault area, near Point Reyes, California, where the fault runs directly through two peninsulas (Sand Point and Toms Point)'' -- TT's map FALSELY represents the map in the reference cited, which is a monograph likely available in libraries. The San Francisco library has 2 copies. The dotted line on the TT's cited map DOES NOT represent the San Andreas fault. Instead, Galloway labels it "trace of 1906 fracture -- after Gilbert". The San Andreas Fault Zone's [henceforth "SAFZone"] terrestrial edges are labeled on Galloway's map with widely spaced dashed lines running up from the south ending in the mudflats at the head of Tomales Bay. [See third map below.]



... however, neither of these peninsulas appear offset at all.(17)  -- TT omits scale and most geology [the only terrestrial feature, "marine and non-marine beds" remains unmentioned]. The geological omission expunges from the map the fact that both peninsulas and the contiguous "mainland" are sand dunes. Such failure suggests the map is lifted from a tertiary source unexamined, at best, or intentionally edited to remove contradicting information.

The peninsulas are relatively tiny features; The Pt. Reyes peninsula, 7 1/2 times longer than what TT shows, has the SAFZone running completely across it's base and shows enormous displacement. "At the time the molten granitic material [found only west of the SAFZone -- me] was emplaced it could have been hundreds of miles south...[a] possibility not hard to envisage since granitic rock similar to that of Point Reyes is present...on the east side of the fault in the Tehachapi Mountains at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley" [Galloway, p. 59, op.cit.].

TT obviously fails to consider:

1) Both peninsulas are overwhelmingly comprised of sand dunes, and thus very fluid. Sand Point [surprise!], which I've stood on twice, is entirely made up a few wind-blown dunes.

2) The SAFZone is not a single, narrow crack as TT falsely implies, but many, mostly parallel fractures and faults. TT wrongly implies that all surface movement is parallel to the fault zone. Surface movement can also be perpendicular and can also cause subsidence and lifting. Various weathering can produce erosion and deposition. TT makes zero mention of this. The Pacific plate is also subducting under Northern California and its coastline is scattered with fossil beaches thereby lifted tens to hundreds of feet above and behind present-day beaches. Again, I've stood on these fossil beaches, just as I've stood on patches of coast where I lived in southcentral Alaska that subsided 10-15 feet during the 1964 earthquake there. That subsidence extended off the coast, displacing huge amounts of water, thus causing the '64 tsunami.

3) The entire Tomales Bay [TT shows 1/3] has been formed by the activity of the SAFZone, which one source says, " is prominent as an elongate valley separating the peninsula...from the mainland...forming Olema Valley and its drowned extensions -- Tomales Bay and Bolinas Lagoon." Indeed, the COVER of Galloway's monograph is an aerial photograph [also found on p.5 and on pull-out map, op.cit.] looking NNW from Stinson Beach. This "elongate valley" and "extensions", which Galloway calls the "Olema trough", are outlined by two widely spaced white dotted lines superimposed on the photo, impossible to miss.



Galloway says "... in this report the words "San Andreas fault zone" are used ... to designate the band of roughly parallel fractures which accompany the "fault trace," or master-fault. The words "1906 fault trace" are used to designate the actual break in the ground which occurred at the time of the San Francisco earthquake of April 18, 1906. ...At Bolinas Lagoon and Tomales Bay, the trough of the fault zone has been invaded by the ocean.... Many other shorter, more discontinuous, fault traces are to be seen in the fault zone, and some are as impressive as the 1906 trace." [p. 47-52] Conclusion: TT never held the referenced book in his hands.

4) SAFZone's had enormous movement recently, a few miles off the bottom TT's map. Let me reach over, into my desk's side-caddy, and pull out one of my two well-worn copies of the National Park Service's fold-out trail brochure for Pt. Reyes [GPO: 1985 -- 461-444/20025 Reprint 1985], and quote it:

"The peninsula rides high on the eastern edge of the Pacific plate. ..The rest of North America, except Alaska, is borne westward on the slower-moving American Plate. In Olema Valley...these two great landmasses grind together. Where one plate ends and the other begins cannot be pinpointed accurately, for a single fault line does not exist. This meeting of the plates is, quite simply, a rift zone, which contains many large and small faults running parallel and at odd angles to one another...The jumbled nature of the surface landscape is the manifestation of stress far below the surface of the Earth, often as much as 300 or 400 miles deep...This is what happened in the Olema Valley in 1906; the result was the devastating San Francisco Earthquake. At the time, the Point Reyes Peninsula was thrust five meters (16.4 feet) northwestward." [all emphasis mine]

Near the park headquarters is the Earthquake Trail. I've been on it many times. There is on this trail, near the barn on an information plaque, a photograph of the spot just after the '06 quake, so marked because there was a white, wooden fence running across the surface rupture and it's two halves are correspondingly displaced near to the 16.4 feet. Galloway cites similar size movements in 5 places on Pt. Reyes, and one each tens of miles north and south of it.

The absurdity of TT's approach is evident if I multiply 16.4 feet [which actually occurred in less that 2 minutes] times 5,000 years equals 82,000 feet, or roughly 15 miles. Nowhere in TT's discussion are the dynamics of the fault even mentioned [the creeping plates gradually build up pressure until the pressure exceeds the friction of the plates and they catastrophically lunge, then start the process over again. See ++ at end of analysis, below]

5) One map cannot counterweigh what must be hundreds of published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, and, most importantly, their attendant data, that prove otherwise, even if said map wasn't falsified, which it is. There's no mention, not even a sub-sentence, about the counter-vailing evidence and the reasons for the current scientific consensus on the mechanics and history of the SAFZone.

Data is a concept TT seems ignorant of. The monograph TT falsely cites as his evidence was constructed from..."Two hundred and thirty days of field work...completed during the years 1959-1965. ...U.S. Geological Survey...photographs were studied stereoscopically and used for locating field observations. Oblique aerial photographs were used to study cliff faces. Rock samples were studied under binocular microscopes, and thin sections were made of selected igneous and metamorphic rocks for petrological study. Numerous rock samples were washed and examined for microfaunal content. [Introduction, p. 6, Galloway, op.cit.]

"The geologic map was prepared by the writer using as a base the five 7 1/2-minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quad-rangles that cover the area. The mapping was done entirely on foot, using vertical aerial photographs of series GS-UX (1952) to determine and record the locations of the nearly 1500 observations. [A Note on Geological Map, p. 69, Galloway, op.cit.]".

That's DATA, rather than falsely citing references. TT dismisses all of this because a few sand dunes haven't been permanently displaced.

... Furthermore, since these plates (presently) move at the rate of one to two inches per year, -- no evidence whatsoever provided to underpin this -- nada.

... if we assume that this has been going on for (only) the past 10,000 years, then these two peninsulas should be offset by more than 1/4 mile. -- My calculations, per 4) above, indicate at 10,000 years it should have moved 30 miles. TT is piling fantasy on top of assumption on top of falsification, and then doing computations on the results! And then asks us to judge 1/4 mile of geological movement from a non-scaled map!! Clueless.

... However we don't observe even the slightest offset of these peninsulas -- "we" need to "observe" the real, physical world to counter probably tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of hours a fieldwork thereon.

... on the map. -- the map is falsified

... This strongly suggests -- antecedent reference is ambiguous -- which falsification does "this" refer to?

... that the San Andreas fault is quite young (probably less than 5,000 years old) -- Among the castles in the sky TT has built, TT provides zero evidence, calculation, etc. for reaching "5,000 years". Presumably the SAFZone could have begun just prior to, or even with, the '06 quake. Even TT can't deny the '06 quake; otherwise TT's logic dictates that since the peninsulas are not offset "even the slightest", the '06-quake ruptures did not occur.

... It also is an indication that the continents themselves are young as well. -- >>> LOOK CLOSELY HERE <<<. Another rhetorical device used to gloss over lack of any connection. As if by satanic spell TT conjures a date ["less than 5,000 years old"] out of thin air, then says, if the fault's only this old, the continents must be that old too. There's NO LOGIC here. My idea in the preceding paragraph works for TT's fantasies about continents also. And what evidence indicates movement equals age in continents? TT's use of rhetoric [unstudied as I suspect it is] puts TT squarely in league with politicians and advertisers.

... The diagram below illustrates this point."  [The "map" of the beginning of TT's paragraph has become a "diagram". While clearly a more truthful appellation, as a "diagram" it is still just as falsified.

The footnote itself,... by the way, refers to nothing. On those two pages in Galloway there's nothing remotely on-subject for TT's two sentences preceding the footnote. If TT is referencing the map below the footnote, TT fouled that up too. Galloway presents only two maps. One is a sleeved, 36" by 30", fold-out, full-color geological map, and the other an 8" by 11" black and white map in the text, but it's on page 4. If the black and white is the reference, TT's portion is about 1/64th the total map. Even at that size, it's clear that the two peninsulas are primarily sand dunes, and the dotted line carries a label that, cut by TT's cropping, would read, "1906 EARTH" ..and continues on the original ..."QUAKE TRACE". Each of the nine ways to lie listed below, one could argue, apply to this footnote which is a falsification even of the core of the reference -- there's nothing at pages 22 and 23.

I'll also point out that the sole reference TT has chosen to use to overturn everything science knows about the SAFZone is by a geologist and ex-vice president of Shell Oil -- who is long dead and can't ask/legally force TT to stop slandering his work. Does this make TT a bully? Consider the other abundant evidence.

++ Note [from above]. If I may cite and plug at the same time: "... the crust in the contact [between the plates -- me] is twisted, creating stresses that cause the rocks to snap back into their original shape at irregular intervals, rupturing along the fault plane in the process. Where slight bends in the fault lock the opposite sides together, as around San Francisco and in Southern California, the snapping occurs at intervals from a half century to several centuries, and causes great earthquakes."

-- from my trusty and beautifully rendered "Pictorial Landform Map, Point Reyes National Seashore and the San Andreas Fault California", copyright 1982 by Dee Molenaar, Wilderness Press, Berkeley, California. Hikers will salivate at the "intricate trail system" laid over the valleys, ridges, meadows, and forests of western Marin County drawn on the oblique-view map.

_________________________________________

Of the many ways to lie, here's an incomplete list. [The letters for each type refer to TT's two paragraphs above; the numerals in the notations there are a running total for that type of lie. ]

A) State in the affirmative something you know to be false [false witness]. B) Make true statements but directly/implicitly falsely represent context, [false witness]. C) Withhold accurate information when it's relevant [false witness]. D) Falsely characterize something -- the INCREDIBLE OFFERS! of the advertising industry [false witness]. E) Oversimplify fundamentally complex or nuanced reality [false witness]. F) Ignore valid counter-evidence [false witness]. G) Publicly claim/imply expertise in a domain of which wholly/partially ignorant [false witness]. H) Use of pro forma logic or math with false inputs [false witness]. I) Make conclusions not supported by evidence presented [false witness].

All of us, even children, understand these are ways of lying. So, in slightly more than 200 words, TT managed to bear false witness 30 times [single instance] to 93 times [multiple instance]! Achievement duly noted.

The point I'm making here for Wikipedia is not about the scientific validity of TT's positions, which is non-existent, but the moral issue it presents the Wiki-process. TT's position is fundamentally an AMORAL ARGUMENT and as such presents a problem.

This is, of course, the ultimate in situational ethics, so thoroughly decried by those of TT's ilk! Here, their belief in their "ultimate reality" allows them to lie about any situation in service of their "ultimate reality". They feel no obligation even to follow their own "commandments" as befitting, they dare not argue, their own "special" nature. [Anyone with more than a veneer of historical knowledge, TT not being among such group, can see this type of personality throughout history and the immense amount of grief, destruction, and misery it has caused.]

Fundamentally, they don't accept the scientific method as a valid investigative tool. Indeed, at the recent "evolution trial" in Kansas City the ID crowd made, from the podium, a plea that the 'DEFINITION OF SCIENCE be changed. ' Go check the news reports. If so inclined, they could invest themselves in Wiki dialogues in a perpetual, tag-team stream as they appear to be doing in our education system. Remember, the demarcation between "amoral" and "evil" is a very nebulous boundary.

"The politicisation of science has increased at all levels," says [Kenneth] Miller [of Brown University]. "What is happening is a political effort to force a change in the content and nature of science itself." ["A battle for science's soul", Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist, July 9, 2005; Vol. 187, No 2507.]

This is a well-financed and well-conceived mass-media campaign that will, in essence, "go over the heads" of the scientific community to it's funders -- the voters of America. First evolution, then geology, astronomy and cosmology. Then perhaps physics. Finally the soft sciences will be eviscerated, starting with psychology. [Here's a prediction -- within 5 to 15 years we'll see a national assault on the university institution of tenure. That, in turn, is step one toward making all university faculty employment subject to political control.]

Don't buy that? A change of elementary and secondary teacher's tenure, from two to five years, has been put on the upcoming California ballot via initiative. The author, California Republican Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia dreamed it up after "discussing it with friends". There's no research on a connection between probationary period and teacher quality. If it passes, it will make California and Missouri the only states that require such a long probationary period. A co-chair of the committee that "spent millions collecting signatures to put the initiative on the ballot" is William Hauck, president of the California Chamber of Commerce. Hauck said, regarding this issue, "Ideally, we would have no tenure or collective bargaining" for teachers. [Information taken from "Dancing the teacher-tenure tango" by Louis Freedberg [editorial writer] San Francisco Chronicle, page B-4, May 16, 2005] By the way, it is the only one of numerous ballot measures leading at mid-summer, 2005.

One need only to have observed the last 30 years of the American political scene to have seen this approach very successfully applied. The same bankrollers have already turned their attention to science. If you think the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate gatekeeper that will keep religion out of science education, then you've been spending way too much time in the field and at the bench. Countering this campaign simply through the individual efforts of a handful of scientists is guaranteed to fail...

If TT responds to this, beware resort to rhetorical [false witness] devices:


 * creating "straw men", misattributions, etc. to subsequently demolish


 * talking off-point to referenced statement


 * links instead of concise reason, evidence, and editing (false witness as well as sloth :)


 * personal attack as deflection from TT's falsification


 * admit my personal knowledge but avoid noting TT's methodological failure


 * confessing a "map mistake" but denying it's implication to his larger argumentation


 * responding to minor elements while ignoring major elements and thrusts

_________________________________________
 * focus on my PS rather than TT's BS

Finally, to shift gears a bit, I'd like to give high commendation to all the scientists and engineers putting energy into Wikipedia. I know how demanding a scientific career is, and this extra effort should be recognized and applauded by everyone. The TTs of the world, mainly in the U.S., won't stop. They'll keep coming and coming and the public won't be bothered to look beyond rhetorical argument. The quote "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" is appropriate here.

I'd suggest that the scientific community needs to cultivate a more profound sense of professional responsibility regards communicating with the public about what it does. So then the ones that do spend time on this might receive rewards more commensurate with the importance of their task. Surely this is a persuasive argument to your highly intelligent peers.

Again, thanks to all.

_________________________________________

P.S.  The following doesn't fit the subject of this post, exactly, but most of it's from the talk:Dinosaur page. After seeing so much TT I think it's relevant observation -- the task the TTs of the world set for themselves is political, not scientific. Please excuse it as my emotional release after treating so much intentional false witness as I would the truth.

A careful reading of TT's wiki-postings reveals a grandiosity, self-absorption, and hubris of which TT is obviously unaware. In no particular order:

from TalkDinosaur:

... As a former evolutionist -- [see User:Truthteller below] and someone who knows the Creator personally -- "and TT, you must do something about these radical evolutionists. I'd smite them myself but I'm busy with the secular humanists and the Europeans right now."

...I can say unequivocally that Creationism is not only TRUE, but, (even) from a scientific (i.e. logical) perspective -- Notice not only the grandiosity of TT's knowledge here, but even more importantly TT's equation of science and logic, which is likely as far as TT's definition of science goes.

... but I also realize that I cannot force the truth on anyone, and neither will I try. -- So falsifying the truth appears to be the alternative to force. I will, however, try to reason with anyone who is willing to listen. -- In TT's hubris, only others should listen.

... I propose that the Word "Dinosaur" be withdrawn from modern Usage -- This is my personal favorite -- why not rewrite the dictionary while you're at it! Oh yeah, I appreciate the citation of great literature, but since when has "Beowulf", et. al. become data in the biological sciences?

... I don't recall deleting anyone's comments except for a few (rude and crude remarks)  -- Astonishing! As I said above, why stop with "dinosaur" and "rude" and "crude" and "million". Do the entire dictionary. Half of it's words deserve to be illegal, right? TT's subconscious is oozing out. Also note the irony -- TT's starting to sound like those misguided liberals on campuses with their hate-speech prohibitions.

... I do think that (virtually) the entire evolutionist/"scientific" community has been misled by their predecessors and is just now realizing that they took a wrong turn about a 140 years ago. -- TT, of course, has personally communicated with these -- I'm guessing here -- tens of thousands [if "evolutionists" only, hundreds of thousands if " 'scientific' community"] of scientists over their highly personal, life-shattering re-evaluation; perhaps TT uses simultaneous telepathy; perhaps they check-in with TT only once, when they've decided their entire professional lives have been a fraud. TT never expresses amazement how so many stupid, gullible people got through 7-10 years of the most demanding university curriculum -- even calculus! -- then ensconced in positions spending, well billions and billions, of tax dollars annually. And curing illness, etc., etc.

... And anyone who is vaguely familiar with the complexity of the cell, [my, incredible, emphasis] and of self-replicating organisms, if they are honest, knows that I am telling the truth -- Again, TT's communion with the scientists of the world. I propose people as dishonest as these scientists shouldn't be allowed to teach our children, or at publicly funded colleges, or get public research money, or be allowed access to public broadcast frequencies, or even be allowed to decipher genomes and control nuclear fission. No Medicine Except Creationist Medicine (Keep evolution out of Medicare)! The Big Bang Is Bullshit! Boycott Physical Letters B!

... I hate to tell you this but you were LIED to in school. -- TT's omniscience borders on the godly, don't you think, and the omnipresent in TT's postings.

... I have looked up so much of the reference information (that Creationists list) myself that I can say first hand that when they give a reference for something it is correct. -- I guess I found the only faulty reference. Hardly. TT is taking responsibility not only for TT's own 93 lies above, but those of many others', SIGHT UNSEEN! TT, I have a STEAL OF A DEAL! on a bridge in Brooklyn -- recommended by creationists.

... I can say firsthand that they -- "evolutionists" or scientists in general? -- are deceived... -- Wow! Firsthand! TT talks to a LOT of people

... Yes, I admit, that there is a LOT of undoing that NEEDS to be done, and I am only one person. -- Glad you cleared that up -- I also am working on two books myself at this time, and will only be here (on Wikipedia) for a short time. -- And besides, TT's got all these [telepathic?] conversations/updates/whatever going on with these tens of thousands of scientists.

''... Please Don't start using personal attacks. That is ONE thing I really DON'T like about evolutionists who have degrees from College.'' -- I guess personal attacks from those that don't have college degrees are OK.

... Please stop the insults or I will not respond anymore. -- TT, the respondent said the argument was stupid, not you, st. . . er, hey, let's redefine English grammar as well as the dictionary. Not to mention calling virtually all the world's biological scientists -- among many, many others -- dishonest, morons, liars, self-delusional, etc., implied or direct, as NOT being insults! TT's self-absorption breeds obliviousness to his impact on others. It goes way beyond hubris, emotionally tone deaf is closer.

... from User: Truthteller:

I am a Christian, who used to believe in evolution and that the earth was "billions" of years old, and that Radiometric dating was reliable. -- And yet TT, and TT's "sources", obsessively cite carbon-14 dating; apparently it's not radiometric. TT offers no definition of his previous incarnation as an "evolutionist". Obviously no one should "believe' in evolution. How does one come to "believe" in radiometric dating? TT reveals his rationality suspect even before conversion; afterwards is evident.

. . . . don't laugh. Their campaign is dead serious.