Pseudo YECs?

This topic is specificly inspired by the discussions of TrueCreation, over that past 6 to 9 months.Somewhere along the line, I believe starting as early as at least last fall, TrueCreation's lines of arguement made the transition from those of a mainstream YEC, to something much more vague. Somewhere there abouts, I made the comment on my impression that TC had made the transition fromm YEC to "YEC lawyer" (I'll try to track it down, if anyone really cares).Anyhow, as I recall, in the message anouncing TC's new administrator roll as AdminTC, TC made a sort of confession as to being one to continue arguing the YEC position, regardless of his personal "true" views.So the question is, to what degree are there "Pseudo-YECs" taking part in this forum?Moose

I haven't seen any, Moose. I can see what you're saying about TC, but it's hard to find creationist posts at all around here, and when we do they are the mainstream, brain-on-hold kind of posts, in my opinion.There are the couple of odd views, but they're not pretending to be YEC.

From some commentary from AdminTC:

quote:

---

--Admit more than 10,000 for what? As for the age of the earth, in all technicallity, you might consider me an agnostic in that area, something I've been meaning to get out but don't think I've had the chance to. I would just consider myself a proponent of YECism because that is where I am most interested when it comes to scientific research initiatives and don't see any reason to think it isn't promising[speaking in TC mode].

---

TC, seems to me that your now operating in the "devils advocate" mode. Face up to it - "True Creation" = old earth evolution Comments TC? or anyone else?Moose

Here's a couple of old (11 months ago) examples of TC seemingly operating in the evolutionist mode:http://EvC Forum: Give your one best shot - against evolution -->EvC Forum: Give your one best shot - against evolution
http://EvC Forum: Give your one best shot - against evolution -->EvC Forum: Give your one best shot - against evolutionMoose

Quoting John, from http://EvC Forum: Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift -->EvC Forum: Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

quote:

---

quote:

---

I can't seem to make heads or tails of what TC is trying to say most times. I figured I haven't been following long enough... but maybe not...

---

​

I've watched TC go from sincere and fairly rational, but utterly wrong, to what you see here-- a really good creationist, complete with all the misdirection, self-imposed ignorance, and denial. I find it very sad actually.

---

I was thinking tha TC had become a "devils advocate" YEC, but things may be stranger than that.Moose

quote:

---

TC, seems to me that your now operating in the "devils advocate" mode. Face up to it - "True Creation" = old earth evolution

---

I have to agree, Moose. Good observation here and good thread.

I am going to pu my forked tongue into its Jacobsian here and ask for a track up on this. It is hard to maintain in this on line environment as it becomes less cyber and more real but the point remains...I have not followed TC closely enough to say of this poster especially but I am against one more Young Earth neologism. I have appreciated seeing TCs posts.My reason: I found the standard"" ICR (YEC) position rather straightforwardly expressed by Matchette in the 40s well before the 60s date to which the focus of anti-YEC or shall I say "pseudo"yec dialects do or do not renounce. There is just NOT enough creationist posts on this site to determine if a simple metaphysical reply is to be tried instead of detailed reversal attempts so let me show you how Biblical Creationism, and Scientific Creationism ALREADY HAVE HAD SUPPORT PHILOSOPHICALLY such that to say a FALSE YEC exists ("pseudo") is rather to port this earlier notion of an unconditioned approach to an absolute.Matchette OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICS p35-6 "In our discussion of the Absolute, we have seen that as First Cause of the relative, it is originative and creative of the relative realm.And at this point it is meet that we consider the status of judgements about creation, or orignation of a universe.To the extent that creation is, in at least some minimal sense, a "happening", our judgements regarding it are "empirical" in the sense that they are presumed to be descriptive of a state of affairs which obtained at a determinate time. And yet, from the methodological standpoint, they are scarcely "empirical" in the sense that they are amenable to observational adjudication; we are in no position at present to "observe" the creative occurrance and thereby confirm"SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM"our judgements about its character"CREATION SCIENCE"These considerations do not suffice to still mand's inquires"C/E"and curiosities"E/C"ABOUT the creative occurrance. They do, however impose limitations as to what can be said and with what reliability." (my CAPS was Italics)TC?"Plato, for example, avowedly can only provide a myth, the immortal creation myth of the Timaeus in which religion, mystery and allegory are woven into a vast and misty tapestry. The Biblical version of Creation is also essentially"BIBLICAL CREATION"allegorical and mythical, frankly transcending "empiristic" claims or criteria"SO IF WE ARE DISPUTING A WORD AND NOT GETTING INTO THE DETAILS OF CREATIONIST THOUGHT (or rather should we not?) then one need ONLY note "transcending" and realize that there is not the scholarship shown on EvC to show that pre60s Priceian GEOLOGICAL judgements are false. They are still true to THIS metaphysics reagardless of who or when someone is "label" "pseudoYECish" in dialect.