***You are mistaken. My parents do influence me, but not nearly as much as I think you think they do. Do you think I do what they say like a robot? No!***
Not at all. However, when it comes to the religion and conviction of your parents, you happen to share a very similar viewpoint. This is not coincidence, your parents raised you to do so. I've seen you respond to arguments, all my opinion is that you do not respond as an open-minded person. Now, you can say that is because I'm one of the 'them', or you can let that criticism sit and maybe you can grow from it. That is your choice.
***But maybe I should ask what 'cognitive frameworks' are before I start getting annoyed.***
Cognitive frameworks is your overall perspective in life. We all are 'stuck' in our particular perspective, however some of us are more open to sharing and being affected by perspectives that are far different than our own. When you cannot be influenced at all, then this is a quality of close-mindedness. People who are raised in an open setting of different ideas and people tend to have a framework that is more diverse and flexible. People raised in a closed setting of similar ideas and people tend to have a framework that is more restricted and rigid. Being from a home schooled environment combined with strong fundamentalist beliefs just about guarantees the latter for yourself. As an outsider I can see this in the way you interact and how rigid you are in terms of scientific and philosophical ideas. Everyone else here (besides Aaron) have diverse and flexible belief systems. Mike is a little rigid (in terms of his contact with others), but he is not restricted at all. I think everyone here is able to approach discussions with a much more open-mind - especially about learning scientific ideas and concepts.
***Well I must do this without thinking about it, because I do not intend to cut a conversation short. Sorry. And, so far, I have seen no contradictions.***
I've seen about a dozen contradictions come in your conversations. You don't see them as contradiction because they are not formal contradictions. For example, we discussed the issue of scientific inference and how it relates to unobservables about the past, microscopic, interior, etc. You tried to distinguish the past unobservables as a special case, but you could not do it. This is a contradiction and most people's reaction would be to change their view. This is not what has happened with you. You simply disregard the whole result of our dialogue and go on as nothing happened (you have done this with Richard, Rich, Mario, and are in the process of doing it with Luis). Again, this comes from a close-minded framework.
As Luis suggested, right now we are entertaining your conceptions of the universe, but we all consider it 'flat-earthish'. Generally, you might spend some diversions talking to a 16 year old that believes in flat-earths (or hallow earth's), but eventually the novelty rubs off and you get tired of dealing with someone's obtusiveness. I get the idea that you think your scientific challenges (i.e., ICR) are actually worthy of some consideration, but in fact they are not. They are just outdated religious conceptions that are clinging onto any card they can find - no matter how ridiculous, in the hope that enough people of political power will side with them. In other words, it is just pseudoscience powered by religion. It locks you in alright, but no one outside your religious convictions (hence the reason why no scientist who is not a fundamentalist agrees in a worldwide flood causing 5 billion years of geological change).
***That wasn't too harsh. And I'm glad you don't consider me a troll. I don't think you are one either. Of course, I'm not sure what a troll really is. (At least not what it is in this forum)***
Hopefully you will never find out. Of course, the administer would deal with such folks if they ever raise their immature heads.
Warm regards, Harv