TE Observations

[vossler]

The dissonance is clearly articulated in posts #2 and #10, no need for me to go back over what has already been done so well.

I'm sorry but I don't see what you're saying.

I find your use of guilt by association, whether on purpose or inadvertant, especially ironic because it reminds so much of the stories of that other fellow who wandered around hanging out with all sorts of unscrupulous, un-clean and unsavory characters. Now what was his name . . . .

What's this stuff about guilt, did someone do something unscrupulous or commit a sin? If you don't believe my personal observations fit then you're more than welcome to disassociate yourself from them.

In terms of respecting my faith, if that is really what you intend, then why is it necessary for you to pray that I might "accept God's Word as it is plainly written"? Does that show respect in my faith? If anything it plainly demonstrates that you believe that I lack faith simce I am either incapable or unwilling to read the Bible as you do.

I pray for lots of folks who are Christians who, IMO, are not following God's Word. How does that disrespect their faith?

And lastly, let's go to the video for an instant replay of the slap, shall we?

[/size][/font][/i]

That's what you wrote, and this is what I read:

The following unsubstantiated and undocumented statements are some of the ones that I can remember (or make up out of thin air, who would know since I haven't bothered to support my claims with quotes or links or anything that resembles definitive proof) being made by TEs (I hope that no one notices the subtle difference between some TEs saying some of these things and the over-generalization of saying that all TEs said all of these things. I don't think I'll bother to point that out.) As far as I know not a single one was ever refuted by another TE (and it is perfectly reasonable for me to expect that TEs should be a cohesive, self-organized group complete with a protocol for self-policing and a stated policy manual from which to police, even though this is an internet forum where if two TEs were ever meet face to face on the street they wouldn't know each other from Adam)so it would be safe to say that TEs (inasmuchas my presuppositions about TEs are true), at least in general (I love blanket statements) believe these statements to be true (guilt by associating being a proper form of reasoning. And might I add that if TEs don't bother to respond to this post then I will feel free to use it in all future exchanges to prove what cretinous heretics they are. After all they were given their fair chance, they've had their day in court now) The purpose here is not to incite (don't bother getting incited as I won't bother listening to it anyway) but to inform and assess (let's not dwell too long on the fact that the 'information' I've provided is completely unsubstantiated and ridiculously biased and interwoven with clear associations of guilt with evil atheists, human secularists and dare I say - the ACLU, no let's just sit back and have some fun throwing darts at the TEs - they don't feel the pain) what we believe (notice how subtly I've managed to insinuate myself as one of the TEs here? They'll never see what's coming.)

If you are sincere in your apology, then please think not twice, but thrice, before posting such things as this.

As a newer member to this forum, at least within the Origins Theology section, you may not have been aware of many of the observations I've listed and for that you get a pass. However, if your goal is to change what I've written to align with what you really wish I had said, well I'm not going to play that game. My statements were observations, if you wish choose to ridicule them, you're free to do so. But since you can't respect them for what they are and the spirit in which they were presented then I will exercise my free will not respond.

 

[notto]

It is interesting to note that the OP is directed at TE's with no mention of old earth creationists or those that support ID and who accept an old earth and common descent. Why is that? Why is this not directed and all who do not accept YEC point of view?

It would seem that YEC's will yoke themselves with non-literalist old earth creationists and ID supporters to discredit a fellow believer.

 

[notto]

I'm sorry but I don't see what you're saying.
What's this stuff about guilt, did someone do something unscrupulous or commit a sin? If you don't believe my personal observations fit then you're more than welcome to disassociate yourself from them.
I pray for lots of folks who are Christians who, IMO, are not following God's Word. How does that disrespect their faith?
As a newer member to this forum, at least within the Origins Theology section, you may not have been aware of many of the observations I've listed and for that you get a pass. However, if your goal is to change what I've written to align with what you really wish I had said, well I'm not going to play that game. My statements were observations, if you wish choose to ridicule them, you're free to do so. But since you can't respect them for what they are and the spirit in which they were presented then I will exercise my free will not respond.

I think we are all simply pointing that your obervations and the conclusion you draw from them are a bit flawed. You have made more than observation, you have drawn subjective conclusions from them. These conclusion are incorrect, overgeneralized, and based on an appeal to emotion.

If you are simply pointing out observations, you would not attempt to discern the intent behind the actions - those are conclusions and are your own opinion. Don't try to veil it by claiming they are somehow objective observation.

It would also be helpful for you to actually support your observations with the evidence that led you to make any conclusion about 'most' TE's.

Let's take the ACLU one for instance. What leads you to believe that most TE's think the ACLU is good. To come to that conclusion, you would need the input of most TE's on this board. Where is it evidenced that you have gotten that input?

Basing a conclusion on small set (and in many of your observations, I'm guessing a single comment by a single poster) and then generalizing it to an entire group is a flawed methodology. Taking those conclusions and ascribing undocumented intent behind the actions is also flawed.

 

[vossler]

Why the 'in order to discredit a fellow believer'? You are attaching motivation where it does not belong. I don't accept science to discredit a fellow believer. I accept science because it is valid and evidenced in reality. My fellow believers simply discredit themselves by accepting falsehoods and poor science that is demonstratably incorrect. Believer or not, I'll side with demontratable reality.

That's fine you're free to do just that. My point was that YECs, at least not the ones I know, do not yoke themselves to non-Christians in order to discredit a fellow believer.

But you invoked it to try to get an emotional response. Otherwise, what exactly does it have to do with the debate? Again, many Christians TE or otherwise think think the ACLU is a good organization. You simply try to tie TE's to it for an emotional response from your readers. The evil ACLU supporting TE's. That is the only apparent reason why you would even bring it into the discussion.

Really, I wasn't trying to get an emotional response. Like I said, it was an observation that showed the differences between how YECs and TEs think, nothing more, nothing less. I'm sure there are many Christians who believe the ACLU is a good organization, just like there are many who don't, again it's a point where TEs and YECs are different.

 

[vossler]

I think we are all simply pointing that your obervations and the conclusion you draw from them are a bit flawed. You have made more than observation, you have drawn subjective conclusions from them. These conclusion are incorrect, overgeneralized, and based on an appeal to emotion.

I'm sure much of what I say is flawed, unfortunately I'm human, its a by product of who I am. Observations usually have some sort of subjectiveness to them, don't they?

If you are simply pointing out observations, you would not attempt to discern the intent behind the actions - those are conclusions and are your own opinion. Don't try to veil it by claiming they are somehow objective observation.

In order to know specifically of what you speak, what intent have I discerned?

 

[notto]

That's fine you're free to do just that. My point was that YECs, at least not the ones I know, do not yoke themselves to non-Christians in order to discredit a fellow believer.[/size]
Really, I wasn't trying to get an emotional response. Like I said, it was an observation that showed the differences between how YECs and TEs think, nothing more, nothing less. I'm sure there are many Christians who believe the ACLU is a good organization, just like there are many who don't, again it's a point where TEs and YECs are different.

Can you demonstrate that most YEC's think the ACLU is a bad organization? Here again, you seem to be projecting your own conclusions on a group without evidence.

 

[notto]

In order to know specifically of what you speak, what intent have I discerned?

The key thing in my observation was "in order to discredit a fellow believer"

Here you propose that the intent of the actions is to discredit a fellow believer instead of perhaps the actions are the way they are out of the persons beliefs in and of themselves and they have nothing to do with discrediting a fellow believer.

 

[vossler]

Can you demonstrate that most YEC's think the ACLU is a bad organization? Here again, you seem to be projecting your own conclusions on a group without evidence.

Well, if you're looking for poll numbers or something similar, no I can't demonstrate it. Maybe that's something I should do to satisfy your curiosity and even to some degree my own. In the meantime, if you're a YEC and you believe the ACLU to be a good organization please acknowledge yourself, for that matter if you believe them to be a bad organization likewise acknowledge yourself. Thank you!

 

[vossler]

The key thing in my observation was "in order to discredit a fellow believer"

Here you propose that the intent of the actions is to discredit a fellow believer instead of perhaps the actions are the way they are out of the persons beliefs in and of themselves and they have nothing to do with discrediting a fellow believer.

Well maybe that wasn't the intent, but the end result is the same. Look it would be one thing to point out the discrepancies of a fellow believers view, but it's a whole other thing to chime in and agree with a non-believer who is mercilessly slamming the believer.

 

[Battie]

That's fine you're free to do just that. My point was that YECs, at least not the ones I know, do not yoke themselves to non-Christians in order to discredit a fellow believer.

The reason you do not generally see is that YEC is a religious point of view. Even when it is presented as science, it involves God. Thus, you'll probably never seen a non-believer defending the YEC view. You will see TEs and non-Christians arguing on the same side sometimes because the open C&E forum is for debating science, not Christianity. So even if two people do not agree on the existence or character of God, they might agree on science.

When I debate against another Christian, I am not trying to "discredit" them. I want to correct them on a certain point where I feel they are wrong, but I'm not trying to make them look bad. I may occasionally attempt to correct someone who is being mean or rude, but I will do that to anyone no matter what their beliefs.

There are occasions when I agree with non-believers on certain points more than I do my fellow Christians. However, I don't believe that your used of the word "yoke" is accurate. It implies that I'm permanently taking there side in everything, which is most definitely not the case.

We all slip sometimes, but it's very important to keep the perspective that we are supposed to be debating origins and only origins, so siding with a non-believer on a point should not be taken as an attack against another person's faith in any other area.

 

[vossler]

When I debate against another Christian, I am not trying to "discredit" them. I want to correct them on a certain point where I feel they are wrong, but I'm not trying to make them look bad. I may occasionally attempt to correct someone who is being mean or rude, but I will do that to anyone no matter what their beliefs.

I don't think anyone (YEC or not) has a problem with what you've said. The problem is when a non-Christian slams a Christian and then another Christian comes in and piles it on.

There are occasions when I agree with non-believers on certain points more than I do my fellow Christians. However, I don't believe that your used of the word "yoke" is accurate. It implies that I'm permanently taking there side in everything, which is most definitely not the case.

Well when two animals are yoked together to plow a field no one ever thinks that the yoke is permanent. It just means for the job at hand they were yoked together, which is how I used the word in the point I was making.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I don't think anyone (YEC or not) has a problem with what you've said. The problem is when a non-Christian slams a Christian and then another Christian comes in and piles it on.

So we should let a fellow Christian wallow in ignorance? We should ignore our fellow Christians that are unknowingly spouting lies? We should let the non-believers deal with them alone and not offer our own aid?

 

[Battie]

I don't think anyone (YEC or not) has a problem with what you've said. The problem is when a non-Christian slams a Christian and then another Christian comes in and piles it on.

Well, I won't disagree with that either. I've no problem with a Christian supporting an non-Christian in a debate if they happen to agree on an issue, but no one, no matter what their beliefs, should participate in rudeness to another person.

Well when two animals are yoked together to plow a field no one ever thinks that the yoke is permanent. It just means for the job at hand they were yoked together, which is how I used the word in the point I was making.

Then why is that bad? What is wrong with a Christian agreeing with a non-Christian sometimes?

 

[vossler]

So we should let a fellow Christian wallow in ignorance? We should ignore our fellow Christians that are unknowingly spouting lies? We should let the non-believers deal with them alone and not offer our own aid?

Who said anything like that? Aid? For when their slamming the individual for their perceived stupidity or ignorance? Do you really think this is what God wants us to do?

 

[vossler]

Then why is that bad? What is wrong with a Christian agreeing with a non-Christian sometimes?

I didn't necessarily say there was something right or wrong with it, just that it was a difference between YECs and TEs.

 

[notto]

Well maybe that wasn't the intent, but the end result is the same. Look it would be one thing to point out the discrepancies of a fellow believers view, but it's a whole other thing to chime in and agree with a non-believer who is mercilessly slamming the believer.

And what exactly is that end result and how is it any different than a YEC slamming a TE by joining the chorus of other YEC's? Is it any different than the YEC's we see questioning the faith of their fellow believers?

Please be specific.

You seem to be suggesting that it is inappropraite to agree with a non-believer. If the best you can do to defend your ideas is to try to taint believers who agree with non-believers that your ideas are wrong, then I would say that the ideas must not be very well supported in the first place.

You seem to be suggesting that it is inappropriate for a believer to chime in and agree with someone who is mercilessly slamming the believer. Would you apply this same criticism to a YEC who mercilessly slams the beliefs of a TE? It would seem hypocritical if you did not. Your constant and repetitive (and often unfounded) slamming of TE's and you repeated insinuations that somehow their faith is not as strong as yours would seem to fall into the category of behavior that you are here criticizing. When other YEC's pile on in agreement with you, do you chastize them? Why not?

Why do you limit your criticism to TE's when so many of them equally apply to old earth creationists, ID supporters and even other YEC's who slam other believers, yoke themselves with non YECs to support their point of view, and don't read the bible the same way you do?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Who said anything like that? Aid? For when their slamming the individual for their perceived stupidity or ignorance? Do you really think this is what God wants us to do?

All too often what is called "piling on" by those one side or another here is simply pointing out where one is wrong. Very few actually get piled on.



If someone here starts yet another 2nd law of thermodynamics argument and 50 people try to point out the flaws in such an argument is that getting piled on? Is that slamming them?



I have seen only a handful of people on this or the C and E forum acutely get piled on repeatedly, and most of the time they were either atheists pretending to be YECists or just simply so nuts that nothing else, no amount of scripture of science would work in convincing them of their mistakes.



I am against directly insulting anyone here and try not to do so myself, however, I will not be silent and let someone spout out lies and falsehoods, knowingly or not, just to avoid bruising their pride or to avoid agreeing with non-believers just for the sake of being afraid that standing up for what is right might loose me some points with those afraid to stand up for what is right.

 

[vossler]

All too often what is called "piling on" by those one side or another here is simply pointing out where one is wrong. Very few actually get piled on.

If someone here starts yet another 2nd law of thermodynamics argument and 50 people try to point out the flaws in such an argument is that getting piled on? Is that slamming them?

I have seen only a handful of people on this or the C and E forum acutely get piled on repeatedly, and most of the time they were either atheists pretending to be YECists or just simply so nuts that nothing else, no amount of scripture of science would work in convincing them of their mistakes.

I am against directly insulting anyone here and try not to do so myself, however, I will not be silent and let someone spout out lies and falsehoods, knowingly or not, just to avoid bruising their pride or to avoid agreeing with non-believers just for the sake of being afraid that standing up for what is right might loose me some points with those afraid to stand up for what is right.

I don't go over to C&E much and for good reason. YECs are not treated very well at all. There's a fellow named Edmond who fits the description I'm talking about. I'm not here to say he's truthful or not because I don't know. What I do know is that in the thread I was reading he was repeatedly accused of things that had nothing to do with the OP and Christians were piling on with their own insulting remarks. This was just the most recent example of this, there have been many just like this over the time I've been a member.

 

[notto]

I would be interested to know if the following quote is evidence that supporters of intelligent design are yoked with unbelievers and if their views are supported by the secular world. Do they make statements like this simply to discredit fellow believers?

I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts. That said, I believe that nature points beyond itself to a transcendent reality, and that that reality is simultaneously reflected in a different idiom by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. - William Dembski

Statements from the Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.

 

[notto]

What I do know is that in the thread I was reading he was repeatedly accused of things that had nothing to do with the OP and Christians were piling on with their own insulting remarks.

Yet you offer no criticism of Edmonds behavior and his accusations and insults (often toward fellow believers), misquotes and incorrect information, and refusal to listen when presented with evidence that he is incorrect. Interesting.