Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

Ah Bill "tactical assult*" Birkeland - Bill if you read this, hope you are well, your posts were some of the most educational I've ever seen.* for newer members, Bill's appearance on those sort of matters was like the SAS smashing coming in the window, the creationists arguments were machine-gunned to death.

I also find this an interesting quote:

quote:

---

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers.

---

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htmIsn't this what us Evilutionists are suppose to be doing?

is that it? That's all you've got?that's your Rebuttal?Weak.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-Aug-2005 08:52 AM

Holmes - maybe you need to read your own signature?

Faith - people involved in crackpot sciences all tend to demonstrate the same traits - the following is adapted from the crackpot index that can found all over the net - see anyone you know?1) They feel that a detailed knowledge of an area is not required to critique that area and it's theortical basis.2) They feel that the argument they present is totally straightforward and it's only due to bias or some mental defect that other people cannot get it. Those arguments generally read as gibberish to anyone who actually work or know anything about that area.3) They feel that people are out to "get them"4) They tend to overuse of words all in capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).5) They claim that when their theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.6) They claim that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your pet theory from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.7) They defend themselves by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to their pet theories.8) They arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".9) They constantly reuse statements despite careful correction.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-Aug-2005 06:44 AM

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a JW a while back, we were talking about the Kingdom and the claim of that cult that it would be on earth. The person I was discussing it with found it physically painful to discuss the matter, they actually started to shake - just from a discussion!This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-Aug-2005 06:52 AM

Which seems to me to a tactic to shift over to a parallel strawman discussion. Unless they say 100% effective you are going to poo-poo them.so let's get right into it - how effective do YOU feel they should be?Give us a percentage.

So? I'm a professional qualified teacher with many years of experience - His assessment seems spot on to me. Would you prefer he tells you pleasant lies about his interactions with you?

What a joke! What do you think human interaction is? Every communication we have either in the real world or via a virtual intermediary such as this is a reflection of, and informed by, our constant interaction with each other and the social context in which that interaction is grounded.All your computer does is act as * tool for mediating that interaction. Subjective judgements, personal assessments and feelings about you are expressed in every post you have seen in this thread. There are always framed by the our assessments (on many levels) of what we feel the other person can understand, can stand to hear etc. Anyone who can read can see a "personal assessment" of your viewpoints in every reply posted on this thread and every often - it's unavoidable. Some are explicit but far more is expressed implicitly because of the cultural norms of this board and the sanctions that members (as enforced by the moderators) could expect for expressing more clearly how they feel about their interactions with you.* That’s an activity theory approach rather than those defined by more cognitive based theories before anyone starts ragging me on that.In all its richness the activity of the human individual forms a system embedded in the system of societal relationships. Outside these relationships there is no such thing as a human activity (Leont'ev)".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 25-Aug-2005 05:08 PM

quote:

---

I'm obviously not talking about inadvertent or unconscious communications.

---

Neither am I - did I use too many long words?But let's not get into it, the colour is slightly different on the planet I currently inhabit.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 25-Aug-2005 05:19 PM