YECs do not self-critique...

[Jorge]

... such is the claim of many, comparing YEC to a "mindless cult where people accept the edicts of a few".

That claim is clearly insane nonsense and generally comes from people that are blind fanatics with a truckload of axes to grind. Anyway, I thought I'd provide just one piece of evidence to demonstrate the emptiness of their claim (for the sake of those that'll listen - I doubt very much that they will change).

I subscribe to the TJ (Technical Journal), published by AiG. The inside of every back cover contains the following : "Christians need to keep on providing scientific answers within a Biblical framework, and refining our case (including exposing whatever flaws there may be in old arguments). We also need to be ready to respond to challenges by critics."

The highlighted section clearly states that we within the YEC position have a goal of exposing flaws with the obvious aim of correcting ourselves. It is fairly common in the TJ to see an article where one YEC author critiques the hypothesis, model, etc. of another YEC. Barry Setterfields' cDk hypothesis, for example, was critiqued in the TJ and AiG presently favors Humphries' hypothesis over that of Setterfield.

Case closed - never a case to begin with. The absurd accusations of those fanatics that want to characterize YEC as a "mindless cult" is exposed as totally fraudulent - there isn't even a shred of doubt that truth is what matters to us, not promoting a position regardless of correlation with reality or lack thereof.

While we're on the subject of 'cults' : from the time a chid is in kindergarden he/she is shown pretty pictures of dinosaurs and told that "they lived and died millions of years ago". This mantra is relentlessly pumped into their young, unsuspecting, uncritical minds through grade school and college. If they do not faithfully regurgitate these lessons of "millions of years" they 'fail' (on tests) and the system and peers punishes them for this failure. If not a cult, what at the very least we have here is a system of unmitigated indoctrination paid for with tax dollars¹. In its common recognizable form it goes by the name of "science education".

¹(For those of you that are thinking that churches also 'indoctrinate' their members, even if this were true (it isn't) they do not get their funding from the tax coffers). Hey, if Naturalists want to promote their religion (materialistic Naturalism), why does the law force all of us, under penalty of law, to have to pay for it?

In Texas for a few more days and then Miami and then finally home for a while so please be patient.

Jorge

[Jme]

Jorge you should look at the latest New Scientist as it has a special on fundamentalist thinking .

Now don't be dismissing it before you see it - while the pieces diagree with your (fundie) goals and what you believe - they are fair enough to say that in terms of intelligence and reasoning you lot are as normal as anyone.

I think I have a bit more understanding for the fundies from reading it.

[Jorge]

Jorge you should look at the latest New Scientist as it has a special on fundamentalist thinking .

Now don't be dismissing it before you see it - while the pieces diagree with your (fundie) goals and what you believe - they are fair enough to say that in terms of intelligence and reasoning you lot are as normal as anyone.

I think I have a bit more understanding for the fundies from reading it.

"... as normal as anyone" - now there's a scary thought!

Jorge

[wattsr1]

... such is the claim of many, comparing YEC to a "mindless cult where people accept the edicts of a few".

That claim is clearly insane nonsense and generally comes from people that are blind fanatics with a truckload of axes to grind. Anyway, I thought I'd provide just one piece of evidence to demonstrate the emptiness of their claim (for the sake of those that'll listen - I doubt very much that they will change).

I subscribe to the TJ (Technical Journal), published by AiG. The inside of every back cover contains the following : "Christians need to keep on providing scientific answers within a Biblical framework, and refining our case (including exposing whatever flaws there may be in old arguments). We also need to be ready to respond to challenges by critics."

The highlighted section clearly states that we within the YEC position have a goal of exposing flaws with the obvious aim of correcting ourselves. It is fairly common in the TJ to see an article where one YEC author critiques the hypothesis, model, etc. of another YEC. Barry Setterfields' cDk hypothesis, for example, was critiqued in the TJ and AiG presently favors Humphries' hypothesis over that of Setterfield.

Case closed - never a case to begin with. The absurd accusations of those fanatics that want to characterize YEC as a "mindless cult" is exposed as totally fraudulent - there isn't even a shred of doubt that truth is what matters to us, not promoting a position regardless of correlation with reality or lack thereof.

While we're on the subject of 'cults' : from the time a chid is in kindergarden he/she is shown pretty pictures of dinosaurs and told that "they lived and died millions of years ago". This mantra is relentlessly pumped into their young, unsuspecting, uncritical minds through grade school and college. If they do not faithfully regurgitate these lessons of "millions of years" they 'fail' (on tests) and the system and peers punishes them for this failure. If not a cult, what at the very least we have here is a system of unmitigated indoctrination paid for with tax dollars¹. In its common recognizable form it goes by the name of "science education".

¹(For those of you that are thinking that churches also 'indoctrinate' their members, even if this were true (it isn't) they do not get their funding from the tax coffers). Hey, if Naturalists want to promote their religion (materialistic Naturalism), why does the law force all of us, under penalty of law, to have to pay for it?

In Texas for a few more days and then Miami and then finally home for a while so please be patient.

Jorge

Gidday Jorge,


Some of your post is correct in that words like “mindless cult”, “indoctrination” etc, cannot be used to describe fundamentalists in general. However, as usual, you appear unable to make a reasonable comment without subsequently shooting yourself in the foot.

Thus, many YEC claims (e.g. about evolution and 2LoT, human footprints alongside those of dinosaurs) have been mindless indoctrination put forward by YEC leaders who, in the main should have known better. Claims such as these, which may have caused internal discussions and in some cases correction – hardly amount to a refutation of the charge of mindless indoctrination. Such claims were made repeatedly by YECs, over and over, year after year – even though they were continually shown to be of dubious nature at least and downright silly at most.

Furthermore from the time a child begins shool to the time he/she leaves university, that child is told an enormous number of things which he/she has to repeat with exactness or else fail the test and exam and thus be punished by the system. Yet you happily (I presume) pay for this – in one way or another. So, are you arguing that all eduction is ‘cultish’? (Fair enough if you are. You would be consistent then. However, given your implicit definition based on your example above, if you answer “no” to my question then you have some explaining to do. And I suspect that your explaining will get us back onto your continual inability to come up with a sensible definiton of ‘genuine’ science.)

With respect to churches, they do not get funding from tax coffers. But equally, they do not pay tax either – do they? Thus a church can earn millions of dollars but not pay tax. (Some churches are very wealthy I am led to believe.). Am I correct?


Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

Gidday Jorge,


Some of your post is correct in that words like “mindless cult”, “indoctrination” etc, cannot be used to describe fundamentalists in general. However, as usual, you appear unable to make a reasonable comment without subsequently shooting yourself in the foot.

Thus, many YEC claims (e.g. about evolution and 2LoT, human footprints alongside those of dinosaurs) have been mindless indoctrination put forward by YEC leaders who, in the main should have known better. Claims such as these, which may have caused internal discussions and in some cases correction – hardly amount to a refutation of the charge of mindless indoctrination. Such claims were made repeatedly by YECs, over and over, year after year – even though they were continually shown to be of dubious nature at least and downright silly at most.

After the above you've asked why I 'ignore' you. Read and think about what the OP says.

Furthermore from the time a child begins shool to the time he/she leaves university, that child is told an enormous number of things which he/she has to repeat with exactness or else fail the test and exam and thus be punished by the system. Yet you happily (I presume) pay for this – in one way or another. So, are you arguing that all eduction is ‘cultish’? (Fair enough if you are. You would be consistent then. However, given your implicit definition based on your example above, if you answer “no” to my question then you have some explaining to do. And I suspect that your explaining will get us back onto your continual inability to come up with a sensible definiton of ‘genuine’ science.)

Tell me, is there any hope that you will one day catch the meaning of just one of my posts?

With respect to churches, they do not get funding from tax coffers. But equally, they do not pay tax either – do they?

I see you also did not understand the point here - another thing to add to the growing list. The point is that the dollars that enter the church come from voluntary contributions from the members and the church uses these finances, among other things, to promote its religion. OTOH, we are forced to supply the funds that Naturalists use to promote their religion (materialistic Naturalism). Where's the ACLU with their whinning about separation of church and state here?

Thus a church can earn millions of dollars but not pay tax. (Some churches are very wealthy I am led to believe.). Am I correct?

Asked and answered.

Jorge

[Jake]

With the best will in the world, Jorge, you are being severely delusional. I dont want to hurt you, or taunt you by saying this, but I have watched your meanderings on this board for almost 18 months and have yet to see you even acknowledge any point that you did not embrace before you started posting. Whenever anyone refutes one of your feeble 'arguments' you retreat to name calling, of making accusations of 'missing the point' or 'having arguments flying over your head'. It used to be funny, now its just a bit sad.

I dont have a lot of hope that my censure will cause you to take a look at your presence here, but I feel I must step in and advise you to stop making such an utter fool of yourself.

After the above you've asked why I 'ignore' you. Read and think about what the OP says.


Tell me, is there any hope that you will one day catch the meaning of just one of my posts?


I see you also did not understand the point here - another thing to add to the growing list. The point is that the dollars that enter the church come from voluntary contributions from the members and the church uses these finances, among other things, to promote its religion. OTOH, we are forced to supply the funds that Naturalists use to promote their religion (materialistic Naturalism). Where's the ACLU with their whinning about separation of church and state here?


Asked and answered.

Jorge

[Mark Little]

Tell me, is there any hope that you will one day catch the meaning of just one of my posts?

Probably not, but then he won't be the Lone Ranger either. BTW, I hope you haven't overlooked my question about your claim about changes to bacteria and what you assert evolutionists say about it.

Do I take your abrupt departure from that thread as an example of "self-critique" in action? BTW, the post is here.

[wattsr1]

After the above you've asked why I 'ignore' you. Read and think about what the OP says.


Tell me, is there any hope that you will one day catch the meaning of just one of my posts?


I see you also did not understand the point here - another thing to add to the growing list. The point is that the dollars that enter the church come from voluntary contributions from the members and the church uses these finances, among other things, to promote its religion. OTOH, we are forced to supply the funds that Naturalists use to promote their religion (materialistic Naturalism). Where's the ACLU with their whinning about separation of church and state here?


Asked and answered.

Jorge

Gidday Jorge,

After the above you've asked why I 'ignore' you. Read and think about what the OP says.

O.k. Jorge, back to you. Tell me what I am missing!

Tell me, is there any hope that you will one day catch the meaning of just one of my posts?

Perhaps you are a lousy communicator – except to the more ‘cultish’ and ‘brainwashed’ of creationists. ;-)

I see you also did not understand the point here - another thing to add to the growing list.

Hey, how about telling me of some other points on the list? You always avoid answering these questions.

The point is that the dollars that enter the church come from voluntary contributions from the members and the church uses these finances, among other things, to promote its religion. OTOH, we are forced to supply the funds that Naturalists use to promote their religion (materialistic Naturalism). Where's the ACLU with their whinning about separation of church and state here?

Well Jorge, exactly how are tax payers dollars being used to promote the religion of materialistic Naturalism. Define “materialistic Naturalism” and tell me which aspects of schooling are tainted by it? Why are they tainted by it as against other aspects of schooling?

Tell me, does tax payer money go to fund private and religious schools in the US? In this country, private and religious schools do get tax payers funding. It sometimes causes rancorous political debate.

Asked and answered.

Why off topic? Didn’t I see you mention the whole issue of church, tax, religion etc? Given that some churches can sell products they create and thereby earn money, then they could be seen as businesses and be liable for taxation. However, I am happy to drop this topic for the reason I think it largely irrelevant. And I do not know whether they should be taxed or not, under such circumstances. I merely raised the point because you led me to it.

Therefore stop complaining.

Also, how about addressing some of my challenges to you about ‘genuine’ science – then we will see how relevant your point is.


Regards, Roland

[geochron]

Probably not, but then he won't be the Lone Ranger either. BTW, I hope you haven't overlooked my question about your claim about changes to bacteria and what you assert evolutionists say about it.

Do I take your abrupt departure from that thread as an example of "self-critique" in action? BTW, the post is here.

Here's another example of Jorge's self-critique mechanism in action

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...4&page=2&pp=16

[Roy]

Tell me, is there any hope that you will one day catch the meaning of just one of my posts?

Many people confuse disagreement and rejection with noncomprehension.

Roy

[Jorge]

With the best will in the world, Jorge, you are being severely delusional. I dont want to hurt you, or taunt you by saying this, but I have watched your meanderings on this board for almost 18 months and have yet to see you even acknowledge any point that you did not embrace before you started posting. Whenever anyone refutes one of your feeble 'arguments' you retreat to name calling, of making accusations of 'missing the point' or 'having arguments flying over your head'. It used to be funny, now its just a bit sad.

I dont have a lot of hope that my censure will cause you to take a look at your presence here, but I feel I must step in and advise you to stop making such an utter fool of yourself.

Your concern is touching, Jake - thank you. Now let's move on ...

Since your opinion of me is already clearly at 'ground state' then I'm not at all worried about looking any worse in your eyes. You mention my "feeble arguments" and yet I can't recall a single instance when you or anyone else has proven this to be the case. Let me give you another chance to show the world how right you are ...

The OP here has two main theme, that the oft-parroted idea that 'YECs do not self-criticize' is fanatical baloney and, "... the dollars that enter the church come from voluntary contributions from the members and the church uses these finances, among other things, to promote its religion. OTOH, we are forced to supply the funds that Naturalists use to promote their religion (materialistic Naturalism). Where's the ACLU with their whinning about separation of church and state here?"

Pick one, Jake, and educate me on the "feebleness" of the argument. That is Option 1. Option 2 is to remain silent as the ignorant are well-advised to do. Did I make this simple enough for you, Jake?

See, I too am concerned about you playing the part of a fool here at TWeb. Ain't I a nice guy!

Jorge

[geochron]

You mention my "feeble arguments" and yet I can't recall a single instance when you or anyone else has proven this to be the case.

Amnesia might at least explain ignorance. Here's an example of your contradicting yourself in your own thread (it was linked a couple of posts above this recent one).

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...04&page=2&pp=16

Pick one, Jake, and educate me on the "feebleness" of the argument. That is Option 1. Option 2 is to remain silent as the ignorant are well-advised to do.

The thread linked above is one where you evidently elected to follow option 2.

[chickenman]

That is Option 1. Option 2 is to remain silent as the ignorant are well-advised to do. Did I make this simple enough for you, Jake?

if only you'd take your own advice and exercize option 2 more often than you do jorge

unfortunately you're delusional as to your own level of competence and comprehension in discussions of biology and geology and physics and (insert field of science)

[aniso]

The OP here has two main theme, that the oft-parroted idea that 'YECs do not self-criticize' is fanatical baloney...

Then your point is kind of a dumb one. The observation that YECs fail to exercise critical analysis skills is a generalization to which anyone can find exceptions. After all, some YECs do finally come over to the dark side.

... and, "... the dollars that enter the church come from voluntary contributions from the members and the church uses these finances, among other things, to promote its religion. OTOH, we are forced to supply the funds that Naturalists use to promote their religion (materialistic Naturalism). Where's the ACLU with their whinning about separation of church and state here?"

Another yawner. The argument that evolution is a religion is just another old and worn-out caricature. Surely, YEC can do better than this. At best, it is no more than a misapplied generalization such as the one you complain about above. At worst, it is a complete prostitution of the English language definition of 'religion'. Do you have a dictionary, Jorge? Oh, I forgot: you don't need one... you just make stuff up...

... Option 2 is to remain silent as the ignorant are well-advised to do.

Ah yes, good advice. I wonder why you don't take it.

[wattsr1]

Your concern is touching, Jake - thank you. Now let's move on ...

Since your opinion of me is already clearly at 'ground state' then I'm not at all worried about looking any worse in your eyes. You mention my "feeble arguments" and yet I can't recall a single instance when you or anyone else has proven this to be the case. Let me give you another chance to show the world how right you are ...

The OP here has two main theme, that the oft-parroted idea that 'YECs do not self-criticize' is fanatical baloney and, "... the dollars that enter the church come from voluntary contributions from the members and the church uses these finances, among other things, to promote its religion. OTOH, we are forced to supply the funds that Naturalists use to promote their religion (materialistic Naturalism). Where's the ACLU with their whinning about separation of church and state here?"

Pick one, Jake, and educate me on the "feebleness" of the argument. That is Option 1. Option 2 is to remain silent as the ignorant are well-advised to do. Did I make this simple enough for you, Jake?

See, I too am concerned about you playing the part of a fool here at TWeb. Ain't I a nice guy!

Jorge

Jorge,

you are wandering away again, getting faint. Or is your tongue wedged so firmly in your cheek that you merely mumble your rebuttles and hence no one can hear them?


Regs, Roland