Observation on creationist tactics

[VoxRat]

I've noticed a pattern in Dave Hawkins's (of Kids4Truth, truthmatters.info, tricity ministries, etc.) posts that I suspect might be a general characteristic of creationist "arguments".

Despite much pleading and prodding (http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20988&postcount=224), questions are never directly addressed. All of the talking points seem to be introduced by indirection.

For instance:...This is amazing. Jon's quibbling about the fact that I mentioned 230 MY when the paper actually said closer to 220. Well ... I guess it figures. When you are desperate to defend your paradigm in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, you'll try any stunt in the book. ...See that? In a post supposedly about "quibbling", Dave sneaks in overwhelming contrary evidence - of which none has been presented.

Or here: ... Do you really expect me to believe that all this sciency sounding poppycock you're bringing up would have been voiced then? Come on, JB. I wasn't born yesterday.Where the actual data and reasoning in an article* in a respected peer-reviewed journal is completely ignored, branding it as "sciency sounding poppycock".

*(An article of which he later went on to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=21112#post21112).)

See that? The merits of the case are not discussed at all. It's just assumed that all those sciency words are just elaborate figleaf for scientists' unquestioning thralldom to "the evolutionary paradigm".

[Ray Moscow]

IOW, he's a troll who systematically avoids honest discussions and has shown himself to be unworthy of reply? Yep.

[VoxRat]

IOW, he's a troll who systematically avoids honest discussions and has shown himself to be unworthy of reply? Yep.Yes, but the point is:
Does this represent the idiosyncratic style of one creationist? Or is this standard operating procedure for creationists in general?

I've always said that one of the primary reasons for engaging in these discussions is to observe tactics. It's certainly not about trying to win over the creationist, or get him to understand the rules of logic.

[Ray Moscow]

I've only come across one other YEC who was anywhere near as persistent as Dave, and his tactics were very similar.

I'm not sure what we can project from a sample of 2, though from reading sites like icr.org it seems that the tactics might be widespread.

[Occam's Aftershave]

IOW, he's a troll who systematically avoids honest discussions and has shown himself to be unworthy of reply? Yep.Yes, but the point is:
Does this represent the idiosyncratic style of one creationist? Or is this standard operating procedure for creationists in general?

I've always said that one of the primary reasons for engaging in these discussions is to observe tactics. It's certainly not about trying to win over the creationist, or get him to understand the rules of logic.
There are a few at TheologyWeb NS301 who do the exact same thing - Jorge Fernandez and Xevolutionist come to mind. Lots of ignorant bluster and unsubstantiated claims, completely ignore the refuting scientific evidence presented, repeat the bluster and claims as if all previous conversations never happened.

So no, Dave's not unique in his slimy dishonest tactics.

[JonF]

IOW, he's a troll who systematically avoids honest discussions and has shown himself to be unworthy of reply? Yep.Yes, but the point is:
Does this represent the idiosyncratic style of one creationist? Or is this standard operating procedure for creationists in general?

I've always said that one of the primary reasons for engaging in these discussions is to observe tactics. It's certainly not about trying to win over the creationist, or get him to understand the rules of logic.
There are a few at TheologyWeb NS301 who do the exact same thing - Jorge Fernandez and Xevolutionist come to mind. Lots of ignorant bluster and unsubstantiated claims, completely ignore the refuting scientific evidence presented, repeat the bluster and claims as if all previous conversations never happened.

So no, Dave's not unique in his slimy dishonest tactics.
And Johnmartin.

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

Yes, but the point is:
Does this represent the idiosyncratic style of one creationist? Or is this standard operating procedure for creationists in general?

I've always said that one of the primary reasons for engaging in these discussions is to observe tactics. It's certainly not about trying to win over the creationist, or get him to understand the rules of logic.
There are a few at TheologyWeb NS301 who do the exact same thing - Jorge Fernandez and Xevolutionist come to mind. Lots of ignorant bluster and unsubstantiated claims, completely ignore the refuting scientific evidence presented, repeat the bluster and claims as if all previous conversations never happened.

So no, Dave's not unique in his slimy dishonest tactics.
And Johnmartin.


And Sal Cordova and Dr Dr Dembski and John Wells and Paul Johnson and Baumgardner and Brown and Brown and Guzman and, well, basically every single YEC, the vast majority if not all OEC's, and, sadly, the preponderance of Christians generally.
By their acts you shall know them, they are self-revealing as unworthy of respect or consideration.

Nurse Durkin
posting while Dr. Armadingo is at a meeting

[ShavenYak]

I've noticed a pattern in Dave Hawkins's posts that I suspect might be a general characteristic of creationist "arguments". Despite much pleading and prodding, questions are never directly addressed.

Thank you, Captain Obvious! :p

[RAFH]

IOW, he's a troll who systematically avoids honest discussions and has shown himself to be unworthy of reply? Yep.Yes, but the point is:
Does this represent the idiosyncratic style of one creationist? Or is this standard operating procedure for creationists in general?

I've always said that one of the primary reasons for engaging in these discussions is to observe tactics. It's certainly not about trying to win over the creationist, or get him to understand the rules of logic.

Of creationists in general, no, of YECers, absolutely yes. They know, at the very least suspect, at their very basic intellectual levels, their entire world view is bunky. Which is why they have to press it, support it so feverishly. It's why they will do anything to maintain their fantasy. I presume it's because they are afraid of dying or, perhaps even, living. The old canard about atheists being immoral because one has to have rules to live by and the rules can't just any rules made by just anyone, they have to be unquestionable rules made by an unquestionable being, a perfect being. Well, sincje all life dies (OK, OK, all faunal life they are normally aware of) that can't be a human, humans aren't perfect, which means their rules can't be perfect. So they have to invent an unquestionable being, gawd, which can promulgate their unquestionable rules. Without such unquestionable rules, who knows what humans would do? I mean, look what we do with unquestionable rules.

So they are afraid of what other humans would but just as much what they themselves would do. They need something to separate themselves from the brutish world. The world they see as being synonymous with the would of evil humans, those who do not have their rules, their law. That entire mode of thought extends from very early human culture. Those outside the law, ie - nature, were evil. Look at the lion tearing the gnu apart, just like the outlaw human, the barbarian would tear them apart, the same barbarian that lives within them, if they abandon their perfect, supernatural rules.

It is this recognition or suspicion of themselves as potentially barbaric, brutal, without the rule of the perfect being, they project on all others. They just assume others will be just like they would if they didn't have the perfect rules promulgated by their perfect being. So, yeah, they expect everyone that doesn't adhere to their perfect rules and in thrall of their perfect being to lie, cheat, steal, murderl, rape, pillage, loot and plunder.

So you have people telling them their perfect rules wasn't from a perfect being and, in their minds, the justification of that criticism is science, that's what questions their perfect being and therefore their perfect rules. They know there are facts, and they know these sciency people have a pretty damn good track record of being right about the facts, hard to argue with the results of that science that so enrich their lives, that bring so many conveniences to their lives. Wouldn't want to have to give all that up, it is rather nice. So it can't be science itself that is the problem, but rather the people that do it, and not those that bring all the goodies, but those that threaten their perfect being and his perfect rules without which they might start murdering, raping, looting, et al. Those happen to be evolutionists, the damnable atheists that openly question their perfect being and its perfect rules. And, of course, if these evolutionists are right, they will have to face this death thing. There would be no 'not really dying but just going to a really wonderful paradise" future. They would have to confront their own mortality and that they are just like all the other beasts, again going back to this issue of the perfect rules of the perfect being protecting them from the wild.

The usual creationist, the OECer, is willing to admit to most of reality, that reality modeled by science. They can interpret their myth loosely enough that there is no serious conflict. There's no question ancient languages were rather vague and loose, often being more just setting the conditions for the body, facial and tonal nuances to express within. Most of the story was in the performance. It's what drama does, bring life to words. One could read Shakespeare dryly enough to lose nearly all impact and meaning if one really worked at it. One could read the Declaration of Independence dryly enough to suck the life of it. Or subdue the terror of Poe's The Telltale Heart.

This is what the YECers don't get, can't get, that those words were meant to inspire, they were just the bones onto which both the narrator and its audience were to place the muscle, the sinew, the organs and finally the skin and features and clothing and jewelry. What it boils down to is a total lack of imagination. And I think most of us would agree, davey is a perfect example of that lack of imagination. He's just not capable of seeing the next question much less even why it should be asked. He's got his perfect rules from his perfect being and they are going to save him from really dying.

[RAFH]

There are a few at TheologyWeb NS301 who do the exact same thing - Jorge Fernandez and Xevolutionist come to mind. Lots of ignorant bluster and unsubstantiated claims, completely ignore the refuting scientific evidence presented, repeat the bluster and claims as if all previous conversations never happened.

So no, Dave's not unique in his slimy dishonest tactics.
And Johnmartin.


And Sal Cordova and Dr Dr Dembski and John Wells and Paul Johnson and Baumgardner and Brown and Brown and Guzman and, well, basically every single YEC, the vast majority if not all OEC's, and, sadly, the preponderance of Christians generally.
By their acts you shall know them, they are self-revealing as unworthy of respect or consideration.

Nurse Durkin
posting while Dr. Armadingo is at a meeting

I wouldn't go so far as to include all creationists. The OECers are willing to go halfway. As long as they can loosely enough interpret their myths, they are willing to go along with science, even support it strongly. But, of course, if you start to nail them down on their supernaturalism, they will get their hackles up.

YECers are entirely different, they have their rules and they are not going to budge an inch. They consider anyone who doesn't accept their world view as barbarians and so not much better than animals. Therefore it is perfectly alright to treat us as they treat animals. It is akin to the scientology concept of "fair game", in other words, anything goes. Indeed, must go. OECes really aren't willing to go that far, and they normally don't have to. There's plenty of wriggle room for them and they are generally more than willing to use it. After, science can not invalidate the possibility of the supernatural, it just doesn't need it to be an accurate and reliable model of reality and so ignores it. That's because the supernatural, by its very nature, is immune to explanation. It can do anything, anytime, anywhere. Therefore it has no limits and can not be used reliably. There might be gods, but if they do exist, they appear to be very fickle and untrustworthy. They might do this, or they might do that or maybe both or perhaps neither or possibly something else entirely. Thus they are useless as an explanation for anything. That assumes, of course, no specifics of such a god are invoked, such as given A or B, said god will reliably do A' or B' and not anything else. Then science can say whether or not that specific prediction is valid. But science can not rule out a race of beings that can and do intentionally make their behavior appear to be non-existent. It really could have been all wopped and fooped together last Thursday, or was it this morning?

[Worldtraveller]

Does this represent the idiosyncratic style of one creationist? Or is this standard operating procedure for creationists in general?
Dave's not special in anyway when it comes to that. The only thing that makes him a bit special is that he's persistent, which puts him into the camp of Larry 'Holocaust Revisionist' Fafarman, Sal 'Braindead' Cordova, and a few others. The only other thing that sets him apart is that he is better at pretending to read the literature and not preaching with babble references.

Oh, and he was just barely able to stay within the civility rules at IIDB. Most other cretinists weren't able to refrain from the name calling and insults when they realized how badly outclassed they were. Maybe dave just hasn't come to that realization yet....

Cheers.

[Constant Mews]

I don't actually see where Dave is better at pretending to read the literature. Dave shows quite clearly that he never reads anything beyond abstracts - and in fact, he admits that he has never read any scientific article beyond the abstract. Is he as slimy and unctuous as Cordova? No. Is Dave demonstrably less intelligent? Yes.

Dave is one of the few creationists who actually makes claims about his intentions, and then does everything possible to dynamite them. This cognitive dissonance is unusual to say the least.

[deadman_932]

Dr. Armadingo (or rather, dear Nurse Durkin, she of the velvety examination finger) -- Surely one can include Cornelius "Corny" Hunter: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=47f52ab74e8a2e37;act=ST;f=14;t=425 4;hl=cornelius+hunter

[ericmurphy]

IOW, he's a troll who systematically avoids honest discussions and has shown himself to be unworthy of reply? Yep.Yes, but the point is:
Does this represent the idiosyncratic style of one creationist? Or is this standard operating procedure for creationists in general?

I've always said that one of the primary reasons for engaging in these discussions is to observe tactics. It's certainly not about trying to win over the creationist, or get him to understand the rules of logic.
There are a few at TheologyWeb NS301 who do the exact same thing - Jorge Fernandez and Xevolutionist come to mind. Lots of ignorant bluster and unsubstantiated claims, completely ignore the refuting scientific evidence presented, repeat the bluster and claims as if all previous conversations never happened.

So no, Dave's not unique in his slimy dishonest tactics.

I think I've stopped a few threads at TW NS301 dead in their tracks by asking direct, unavoidable questions of creationists. Examples:

"What is ID's hypothesis for HOW your purported intelligent designer implemented its design for the bacterial flagellum?"

"How would one go about falsifying an inference of design? What observable structures in the universe cannot be the result of design?"

Sometimes, if it's the only question pending, the only creationist tactic left is to abandon the thread.

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

Dr. Armadingo (or rather, dear Nurse Durkin, she of the velvety examination finger) -- Surely one can include Cornelius "Corny" Hunter: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=47f52ab74e8a2e37;act=ST;f=14;t=425 4;hl=cornelius+hunter

I'll check with her, but I doubt she intended her list to be all-encompassing.
Berlinski comes immediately to mind as one she missed, and Beckwith, and I'm sure there are countless others.
The experiences of a lifetime have convinced me that there are no honest YECs, and damn few honest Christians. I keep hoping to find otherwise, but alas, the search of Diogenes has turned into the futile efforts of Sisyphus.

(She'll appreciate being thought to have velvety fingers, although velvet usually stains badly when wet.)

Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin

[ck1]

I don't actually see where Dave is better at pretending to read the literature. Dave shows quite clearly that he never reads anything beyond abstracts - and in fact, he admits that he has never read any scientific article beyond the abstract. Is he as slimy and unctuous as Cordova? No. Is Dave demonstrably less intelligent? Yes.

Dave is one of the few creationists who actually makes claims about his intentions, and then does everything possible to dynamite them. This cognitive dissonance is unusual to say the least.

Dave does sometimes read papers. I know that because he tried to dismiss one that I had posted by producing a quotemine from the discussion.

[ck1]

And Sal Cordova and Dr Dr Dembski and John Wells and Paul Johnson and Baumgardner and Brown and Brown and Guzman and, well, basically every single YEC, the vast majority if not all OEC's, and, sadly, the preponderance of Christians generally.
By their acts you shall know them, they are self-revealing as unworthy of respect or consideration.

Nurse Durkin
posting while Dr. Armadingo is at a meeting

One notable exception - Glenn Morton.

And perhaps Kurt Wise (YEC).

[Steviepinhead]

CM:
Is he as slimy and unctuous as Cordova? No. Is Dave demonstrably less intelligent? Yes.
I'm not convinced on the second part. Not because I wish to inappropriately elevate dave, but because I don't wish to inappropriately elevate Sal.

If you factor out the differences in specific educational attainments, I suspect that dave could not hold his own just about as well as Sal can't.

[Constant Mews]

CM:
Is he as slimy and unctuous as Cordova? No. Is Dave demonstrably less intelligent? Yes.
I'm not convinced on the second part. Not because I wish to inappropriately elevate dave, but because I don't wish to inappropriately elevate Sal.

If you factor out the differences in specific educational attainments, I suspect that dave could not hold his own just about as well as Sal can't.

You may have a point. But Sal can handle basic algebra; Dave can't.

[Constant Mews]

And Sal Cordova and Dr Dr Dembski and John Wells and Paul Johnson and Baumgardner and Brown and Brown and Guzman and, well, basically every single YEC, the vast majority if not all OEC's, and, sadly, the preponderance of Christians generally.
By their acts you shall know them, they are self-revealing as unworthy of respect or consideration.

Nurse Durkin
posting while Dr. Armadingo is at a meeting

One notable exception - Glenn Morton.

And perhaps Kurt Wise (YEC).There are other exceptions. Don't tar all Christians with the same brush. I suspect the majority are sufficiently apathetic about science that they simply don't care.

[SteveF]

One notable exception - Glenn Morton.

Glenn's an odd case (he won't mind me saying this). He is a theistic evolutionist, but also wedded to the idea of historicity in the Bible (as opposed to your average TE who might go for a bit more metaphor etc). He tries to marry the two in some interesting ways. He certainly tries to get to grips with the archaeological evidence, which is something I have always found hard to square in a TE viewpoint.

YEC makes sense - earth young, flood, bunch of people die, Noah, repopulation, history carries on. No evidence for it of course, but theistically it makes some sense. But TE........hmmmm. You've got tens of thousands of years worth of prehistory before Moses and the resurrection and so on. Tens of thousands of years worth of religion, culture, art, cognitive evolution and so on. Before this you've got archaic homo indulging in sophisticated cultural practices. Even more archaic, you've still got tool use. All of this makes perfect sense to me as an atheist. It just doesn't seem to square all that well with TE. Glenn at least has a go at getting to grips with this.

[Steviepinhead]

CM:
Is he as slimy and unctuous as Cordova? No. Is Dave demonstrably less intelligent? Yes.
I'm not convinced on the second part. Not because I wish to inappropriately elevate dave, but because I don't wish to inappropriately elevate Sal.

If you factor out the differences in specific educational attainments, I suspect that dave could not hold his own just about as well as Sal can't.

You may have a point. But Sal can handle basic algebra; Dave can't.
Well, some of that is indeed a mystery, even when compared with Dave's own claimed EE undergraduate "eddicashun." One might be tempted to be charitable, and attribute some of this to the passage of time and "rustiness."

But then we have dave's oft-proven inability to mentally model even very simple, commonplace physical systems (his hilarious "experiments," his palpable aversion to performing anything like a "real" experiment, his "shade-tree" engineering claims, his "back of the envelope" "math," his dread of actually getting out on the road and looking at paleosols, road cuts, the Grand Canyon..., his refusal to move past abstracts, quote-mines, or to open up any real text, his laughable internet search skills, and his core-deep misconception of the scientific enterprise, ethics and all...).

One is forced to wonder--and I don't mean this in a mean-spirited or denigratory way, any more than I believe you meant some of your tentative diagnoses back at RD.net--about some sort of subtle learning disability.

I wonder if there's a correlation between being raised as dave was raised and some subset of learning problems. In short *wince* are certain forms of stunted *wince* learning styles, if you will, correlated with certain kinds of impoverished child-rearing (let's not call it a species of abuse to avoid side-issues and disputes)?

In deference to the mods, and to some of our more civility-sensitive members (who may have a point, even with well-known quantities like dave and guzman/SS), maybe we should consider my lead-in discussion of some of dave's demonstrated, er, abilities as a separable matter from what I've now bolded.

[VoxRat]

...One is forced to wonder--and I don't mean this in a mean-spirited or denigratory way, any more than I believe you meant some of your tentative diagnoses back at RD.net--about some sort of subtle learning disability.

I wonder if there's a correlation between being raised as dave was raised and some subset of learning problems. In short *wince* are certain forms of stunted *wince* learning styles, if you will, correlated with certain kinds of impoverished child-rearing (let's not call it a species of abuse to avoid side-issues and disputes)?

In deference to the mods, and to some of our more civility-sensitive members (who may have a point, even with well-known quantities like dave and guzman/SS), maybe we should consider my lead-in discussion of some of dave's demonstrated, er, abilities as a separable matter from what I've now bolded.Well again - no disrespect or derogation intended, this is a serious, honest question I have:

Your hypothesis is that these *wince* ... certain forms of stunted *wince* learning stylesare the result of impoverished childhood experience.

My hypothesis - and I'm not being snarky here; I'm perfectly serious - is that fundementia is a real phenomenon. One that would show up in physiological tests, MRI, PET-scans and so forth, if it were not politically incorrect to ask such questions. I suspect you'd find areas of the brain that are essentially shut down in Fundies when confronted with "challenging" data.

Again, if it were (politically) possible to do such experiments, it would be interesting to compare the scans of an adult convert to those of a born & raised fundie*.


*(There needs to be a term for this, sort of equivalent to "red diaper baby")

[Susannah]

Again, if it were (politically) possible to do such experiments, it would be interesting to compare the scans of an adult convert to those of a born & raised fundie*.


*(There needs to be a term for this, sort of equivalent to "red diaper baby")

There is, for at least one subset of these; MK. Dave is one, I think, and so am I. I am under the impression that his parents were with Wycliffe. If so, even the circumstances of daily life and early education would be remarkably similar. Homeschooling and/or mission schools or mission-controlled public schools, limited peer access, limited access to books, intense and constant indoctrination, etc.

I am in contact with a fair number of adult MKs. We all struggle with some measure of residual "muting", even the ones from less institutionalized missions. And we all seem to be overly goal-oriented, often to the point of not knowing when to give up. (It's sometimes -- not always -- a useful trait.)

[Febble]

My hypothesis - and I'm not being snarky here; I'm perfectly serious - is that fundementia is a real phenomenon. One that would show up in physiological tests, MRI, PET-scans and so forth, if it were not politically incorrect to ask such questions. I suspect you'd find areas of the brain that are essentially shut down in Fundies when confronted with "challenging" data.

Again, if it were (politically) possible to do such experiments, it would be interesting to compare the scans of an adult convert to those of a born & raised fundie*.


*(There needs to be a term for this, sort of equivalent to "red diaper baby")

Well, I think it would depend how context specific the scanner task was. I'm uninclined to think there is an actual disorder. But I'd be fairly sure there would be differences in the brain activity associated with the response of a fundamentalist to the question: how old is the earth? say, than to a scientist, which in turn would be different to that of a regular joe.

In fact we don't even need to do a scan to show this - we have plenty of behavioural data that indicates that the behavioural response to such questions is different in the three cases (gets indignant and flustered; starts banging on about evidence; wracks brains to remember long-forgotten fact). And if the behavior is qualitatively different, the brain activity will be too, the mind being what the brain does, and behaviour being the observable output.

But it would be interesting to know what each brain is doing in response to such questions. Although I'd guess that most people are capable of reacting like a fundie to a question in which their emotional investment in a particular answer is greater than their curiousity as to whether that answer is right. And I suspect most of us have them.

Do you have a specific hypothesis? At a guess, I'd expect more limbic activity in the fundie's response to a tricky question, and more cortical activity in the scientist's.

(pages vagabonder....)

[Jet Black]

My hypothesis - and I'm not being snarky here; I'm perfectly serious - is that fundementia is a real phenomenon. One that would show up in physiological tests, MRI, PET-scans and so forth, if it were not politically incorrect to ask such questions. I suspect you'd find areas of the brain that are essentially shut down in Fundies when confronted with "challenging" data.

Again, if it were (politically) possible to do such experiments, it would be interesting to compare the scans of an adult convert to those of a born & raised fundie*.


*(There needs to be a term for this, sort of equivalent to "red diaper baby")

Well, I think it would depend how context specific the scanner task was. I'm uninclined to think there is an actual disorder. But I'd be fairly sure there would be differences in the brain activity associated with the response of a fundamentalist to the question: how old is the earth? say, than to a scientist, which in turn would be different to that of a regular joe.

In fact we don't even need to do a scan to show this - we have plenty of behavioural data that indicates that the behavioural response to such questions is different in the three cases (gets indignant and flustered; starts banging on about evidence; wracks brains to remember long-forgotten fact). And if the behavior is qualitatively different, the brain activity will be too, the mind being what the brain does, and behaviour being the observable output.

But it would be interesting to know what each brain is doing in response to such questions. Although I'd guess that most people are capable of reacting like a fundie to a question in which their emotional investment in a particular answer is greater than their curiousity as to whether that answer is right. And I suspect most of us have them.

Do you have a specific hypothesis? At a guess, I'd expect more limbic activity in the fundie's response to a tricky question, and more cortical activity in the scientist's.

(pages vagabonder....)

well I would expect that if you showed a YEC evidence that the earth was old while in the MRI, you'd see large areas of their brain shutting down.

[Don Alhambra]

well I would expect that if you showed a YEC evidence that the earth was old while in the MRI, you'd see large areas of their brain shutting down.

Nah, you'd just get ACC (anterior cinguate cortex), which is supposed to be involved in error detection and conflict monitoring... though not all the evidence points that way, because fMRI is a tricky old beast and most imaging papers, especially the early ones, are pretty damn wrong. There, I said it.

You couldn't run the experiment anyway because they'd get all indignant and demand to be let out of your godless Satanic brain-assayer.

[Ray Moscow]

It sounds like the best way to convert people to YEC and other salvific beliefs is to remove or disable this ACC thingy.

Now, how do we do that ... (remembers one's own childhood religious brainwashing) ....

[Faid]

well I would expect that if you showed a YEC evidence that the earth was old while in the MRI, you'd see large areas of their brain shutting down.

Nah, you'd just get ACC (anterior cinguate cortex), which is supposed to be involved in error detection and conflict monitoring... though not all the evidence points that way, because fMRI is a tricky old beast and most imaging papers, especially the early ones, are pretty damn wrong. There, I said it.

You couldn't run the experiment anyway because they'd get all indignant and demand to be let out of your godless Satanic brain-assayer.I do believe that some kind of sensory aphasia might also take place, though- maybe some mild form of Wernicke's? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_aphasia)

[RAFH]

*(There needs to be a term for this, sort of equivalent to "red diaper baby")

A bible diapered baby or a scripture diapered baby?

[VoxRat]

Again, if it were (politically) possible to do such experiments, it would be interesting to compare the scans of an adult convert to those of a born & raised fundie*.


*(There needs to be a term for this, sort of equivalent to "red diaper baby")

There is, for at least one subset of these; MK. Dave is one, I think, and so am I. I am under the impression that his parents were with Wycliffe. If so, even the circumstances of daily life and early education would be remarkably similar. Homeschooling and/or mission schools or mission-controlled public schools, limited peer access, limited access to books, intense and constant indoctrination, etc.

I am in contact with a fair number of adult MKs. We all struggle with some measure of residual "muting", even the ones from less institutionalized missions. And we all seem to be overly goal-oriented, often to the point of not knowing when to give up. (It's sometimes -- not always -- a useful trait.)MK?
"Mission kid", maybe?

How does the "MK" subset differ from other subsets?

[Mike PSS]

IOW, he's a troll who systematically avoids honest discussions and has shown himself to be unworthy of reply? Yep.Yes, but the point is:
Does this represent the idiosyncratic style of one creationist? Or is this standard operating procedure for creationists in general?

I've always said that one of the primary reasons for engaging in these discussions is to observe tactics. It's certainly not about trying to win over the creationist, or get him to understand the rules of logic.

Of creationists in general, no, of YECers, absolutely yes. They know, at the very least suspect, at their very basic intellectual levels, their entire world view is bunky. Which is why they have to press it, support it so feverishly. It's why they will do anything to maintain their fantasy. I presume it's because they are afraid of dying or, perhaps even, living. The old canard about atheists being immoral because one has to have rules to live by and the rules can't just any rules made by just anyone, they have to be unquestionable rules made by an unquestionable being, a perfect being. Well, sincje all life dies (OK, OK, all faunal life they are normally aware of) that can't be a human, humans aren't perfect, which means their rules can't be perfect. So they have to invent an unquestionable being, gawd, which can promulgate their unquestionable rules. Without such unquestionable rules, who knows what humans would do? I mean, look what we do with unquestionable rules.

So they are afraid of what other humans would but just as much what they themselves would do. They need something to separate themselves from the brutish world. The world they see as being synonymous with the would of evil humans, those who do not have their rules, their law. That entire mode of thought extends from very early human culture. Those outside the law, ie - nature, were evil. Look at the lion tearing the gnu apart, just like the outlaw human, the barbarian would tear them apart, the same barbarian that lives within them, if they abandon their perfect, supernatural rules.

It is this recognition or suspicion of themselves as potentially barbaric, brutal, without the rule of the perfect being, they project on all others. They just assume others will be just like they would if they didn't have the perfect rules promulgated by their perfect being. So, yeah, they expect everyone that doesn't adhere to their perfect rules and in thrall of their perfect being to lie, cheat, steal, murderl, rape, pillage, loot and plunder.

So you have people telling them their perfect rules wasn't from a perfect being and, in their minds, the justification of that criticism is science, that's what questions their perfect being and therefore their perfect rules. They know there are facts, and they know these sciency people have a pretty damn good track record of being right about the facts, hard to argue with the results of that science that so enrich their lives, that bring so many conveniences to their lives. Wouldn't want to have to give all that up, it is rather nice. So it can't be science itself that is the problem, but rather the people that do it, and not those that bring all the goodies, but those that threaten their perfect being and his perfect rules without which they might start murdering, raping, looting, et al. Those happen to be evolutionists, the damnable atheists that openly question their perfect being and its perfect rules. And, of course, if these evolutionists are right, they will have to face this death thing. There would be no 'not really dying but just going to a really wonderful paradise" future. They would have to confront their own mortality and that they are just like all the other beasts, again going back to this issue of the perfect rules of the perfect being protecting them from the wild.

The usual creationist, the OECer, is willing to admit to most of reality, that reality modeled by science. They can interpret their myth loosely enough that there is no serious conflict. There's no question ancient languages were rather vague and loose, often being more just setting the conditions for the body, facial and tonal nuances to express within. Most of the story was in the performance. It's what drama does, bring life to words. One could read Shakespeare dryly enough to lose nearly all impact and meaning if one really worked at it. One could read the Declaration of Independence dryly enough to suck the life of it. Or subdue the terror of Poe's The Telltale Heart.

This is what the YECers don't get, can't get, that those words were meant to inspire, they were just the bones onto which both the narrator and its audience were to place the muscle, the sinew, the organs and finally the skin and features and clothing and jewelry. What it boils down to is a total lack of imagination. And I think most of us would agree, davey is a perfect example of that lack of imagination. He's just not capable of seeing the next question much less even why it should be asked. He's got his perfect rules from his perfect being and they are going to save him from really dying.
I just looked up Kahaluu, Hawaii on Google Maps and found out why RAFH is able to respond so eloquently to many different threads and forums.

Mai Tais and/or Beer and the Big Island are certainly influences I'm sure.

RAFH,
Do you have a view of the sea when you write? Or are you overlooking the Kona Country Club? I know there's probably a jungle/tropical atmosphere.

At least your address isn't Kaapahu. :eek:

[Febble]

It sounds like the best way to convert people to YEC and other salvific beliefs is to remove or disable this ACC thingy.

Now, how do we do that ... (remembers one's own childhood religious brainwashing) ....

No, I don't think so. What you need is what they do. Associate false ideas with powerful positive or negative emotions. Very difficult to undo. A bit like PTSD.

[NinJay]

It sounds like the best way to convert people to YEC and other salvific beliefs is to remove or disable this ACC thingy.

Now, how do we do that ... (remembers one's own childhood religious brainwashing) ....

No, I don't think so. What you need is what they do. Associate false ideas with powerful positive or negative emotions. Very difficult to undo. A bit like PTSD.

A close friend of mine once told me that, as a child, she "came to Christ" largely because of the fear of hell and punishment. It's not difficult to see how people that have the notion of eternal burning torment ground into them from an early age can have a lot of difficulty getting past that enough to objectively evaluate disconfirming information.

She's still fundamentalist, despite in non religious contexts demonstrating awareness of logical fallacies and reasoning problems. It's interesting how the religious elements of the fundamentalist worldview can become so segregated in their own logic-proof construct.

regards,

NinJay

[Febble]

It sounds like the best way to convert people to YEC and other salvific beliefs is to remove or disable this ACC thingy.

Now, how do we do that ... (remembers one's own childhood religious brainwashing) ....

No, I don't think so. What you need is what they do. Associate false ideas with powerful positive or negative emotions. Very difficult to undo. A bit like PTSD.

A close friend of mine once told me that, as a child, she "came to Christ" largely because of the fear of hell and punishment. It's not difficult to see how people that have the notion of eternal burning torment ground into them from an early age can have a lot of difficulty getting past that enough to objectively evaluate disconfirming information.

She's still fundamentalist, despite in non religious contexts demonstrating awareness of logical fallacies and reasoning problems. It's interesting how the religious elements of the fundamentalist worldview can become so segregated in their own logic-proof construct.

regards,

NinJay

Yes, in many ways it is like delusional thinking. Something happens that means that certain kinds of knowledge evade evaluatoin. In psychotic delusions, there is some evidence that episodic knowledge may become wrongly tagged as semantic knowledge, and thus evade scrutiny, and that may because of erratic hippocampal firing.

But perhaps the same kind of thing happens, for different reasons, when that knowledge becomes too powerfully associated with very deep emotions.

ETA: hey, nice to see you over here!

[Constant Mews]

I don't actually see where Dave is better at pretending to read the literature. Dave shows quite clearly that he never reads anything beyond abstracts - and in fact, he admits that he has never read any scientific article beyond the abstract. Is he as slimy and unctuous as Cordova? No. Is Dave demonstrably less intelligent? Yes.

Dave is one of the few creationists who actually makes claims about his intentions, and then does everything possible to dynamite them. This cognitive dissonance is unusual to say the least.

Dave does sometimes read papers. I know that because he tried to dismiss one that I had posted by producing a quotemine from the discussion.

A quote mine from the paper's discussion section? Interesting. What was the paper? Do you have a link?

[Susannah]

Again, if it were (politically) possible to do such experiments, it would be interesting to compare the scans of an adult convert to those of a born & raised fundie*.


*(There needs to be a term for this, sort of equivalent to "red diaper baby")

There is, for at least one subset of these; MK. Dave is one, I think, and so am I. I am under the impression that his parents were with Wycliffe. MK?
"Mission kid", maybe?

How does the "MK" subset differ from other subsets?

"Missionary kid." Somewhat similar to "TCK", "Third Culture Kid", ("army brats" and the like) but with brainwashing added. The parents are typically very serious about their belief system, and great care is taken to indoctrinate children from early ages, including educating us via home-schooling and/or Mission-operated schools. Often, as in my case, and it seems, in Dave's, a large part of one's childhood is spent in "mission compounds" or otherwise extremely constricted enclaves; the few non-Christian kids with whom contact is permitted will be seen mainly as objects of evangelization, not peers.

My extended family is rather typical. Mom, trained in a Mission school in China, attended Bible College before professional training. Married a missionary.

All of her brothers, and her sister, were missionaries (Africa, Japan), following the same pattern.

Me, (Canadian "first nations peoples", Mexico) home-schooled, or in a mission-compound school, then a Christian high school and college. Married a pastor. Broke the pattern, sending our kids to a secular school, although I did home-school for a couple of years.

My brother's kids; home-schooled (Mexico, Pakistan) until high school, then in a Christian school. Childhood friends were exclusively other MKs. Married other MKs. Home-schooling their own kids. Typical MKs.

[llanitedave]

It's not so complicated, really. You see the exact same traits in politicians: conclusion first, then justification.

As long is the conclusion is strongly held, justification will battle any reality to uphold it.

And creationism seems to me to be first and foremost a political position.

[ck1]

I don't actually see where Dave is better at pretending to read the literature. Dave shows quite clearly that he never reads anything beyond abstracts - and in fact, he admits that he has never read any scientific article beyond the abstract. Is he as slimy and unctuous as Cordova? No. Is Dave demonstrably less intelligent? Yes.

Dave is one of the few creationists who actually makes claims about his intentions, and then does everything possible to dynamite them. This cognitive dissonance is unusual to say the least.

Dave does sometimes read papers. I know that because he tried to dismiss one that I had posted by producing a quotemine from the discussion.

A quote mine from the paper's discussion section? Interesting. What was the paper? Do you have a link?

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14402
Second to last paragraph of the discussion. Dave eliminated the first sentence and tried to use the rest of the paragraph to invalidate the major argument of the paper (which did not deal with digital organisms). Sorry, don't have a link to the original discussion.

[Occam's Aftershave]

I don't know if it's a trend, but lately I've seen AFDave and a few other YEC wingnuts go for the bare bones ignore and lie defense. It goes like this

YEC "evolution has no practical benefits"

Scientist1 " Here is one - understanding drug resistance"

YEC "evolution has no practical benefits"

Scientist2 " Here is another - improved crop yields"

YEC "No one can show me single example of a practical benefit from evolution."

Scientist3 " Here are twenty more, and here's a whole fucking magazine about nothing but evolutionary applications"

YEC "I'm right, there's not ONE example of a practical benefit from evolution."

Maybe it's a time saver for them, but it sure makes them look like lying jerkoffs.

[ninewands]

Maybe it's a time saver for them, but it sure makes them look like lying jerkoffs.
... which can be a GOOD thing.

[Constant Mews]

I don't know if it's a trend, but lately I've seen AFDave and a few other YEC wingnuts go for the bare bones ignore and lie defense. It goes like this

YEC "evolution has no practical benefits"

Scientist1 " Here is one - understanding drug resistance"

YEC "evolution has no practical benefits"

Scientist2 " Here is another - improved crop yields"

YEC "No one can show me single example of a practical benefit from evolution."

Scientist3 " Here are twenty more, and here's a whole fucking magazine about nothing but evolutionary applications"

YEC "I'm right, there's not ONE example of a practical benefit from evolution."

Maybe it's a time saver for them, but it sure makes them look like lying jerkoffs.

You should modify this to recognize that Dave has, as always, changed his story. The initial demand was for the truth; this quickly degenerated into "how does this save a child's life." Once again we see the immense pragmatic selfishness of creationists; their inability to accept that other people have goals and ideals that are worthwhile.

[Constant Mews]

Dave does sometimes read papers. I know that because he tried to dismiss one that I had posted by producing a quotemine from the discussion.

A quote mine from the paper's discussion section? Interesting. What was the paper? Do you have a link?

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14402
Second to last paragraph of the discussion. Dave eliminated the first sentence and tried to use the rest of the paragraph to invalidate the major argument of the paper (which did not deal with digital organisms). Sorry, don't have a link to the original discussion.
Thank you. An instructive read.

[Obd]

I came across an interesting article (http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=23) from The New England Skeptical Society about the difference betweeen skepticism and denial. Some of you might recognize the "denial tactics". :p

[Lucretius III]

I came across an interesting article (http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=23) from The New England Skeptical Society about the difference betweeen skepticism and denial. Some of you might recognize the "denial tactics". :p

Thanks for that
I liked this part in particular and it is the biggest thing I think Creationists either cannot or wil not understand

A more fair and complete definition of science is any discipline which empirically tests its ideas. Historical sciences test hypotheses by conducting field research or making observations of the current universe in order to infer the past. When astronomers view distant galaxies through a telescope, or paleontologists dig up fossils from the ground, they are looking for clues to the past in the remnants of the present. This is perfectly legitimate science which is capable of reaching conclusions with as much certitude as any laboratory discipline.

[Worldtraveller]

No no...those bits about the past are 'just so stories' *fingers in my ears* LALALALALALALALALA

:D

[Worldtraveller]

Has somebody already covered the forum equivalent of the Gish Gallop, practiced by dishonest Dave Hawkins? Starting multiple threads on completely unrelated topics, while ignoring multiple posts in multiple ongoing threads pointing out the problems with his position.

[Notta_skeptic]

Has somebody already covered the forum equivalent of the Gish Gallop, practiced by dishonest Dave Hawkins? Starting multiple threads on completely unrelated topics, while ignoring multiple posts in multiple ongoing threads pointing out the problems with his position.
You snooze, you lose! Someone already brought that up (many posts ago -- somewhere.)

[Obd]

I came across an interesting article (http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=23) from The New England Skeptical Society about the difference betweeen skepticism and denial. Some of you might recognize the "denial tactics". :p

Thanks for that
I liked this part in particular and it is the biggest thing I think Creationists either cannot or wil not understand

A more fair and complete definition of science is any discipline which empirically tests its ideas. Historical sciences test hypotheses by conducting field research or making observations of the current universe in order to infer the past. When astronomers view distant galaxies through a telescope, or paleontologists dig up fossils from the ground, they are looking for clues to the past in the remnants of the present. This is perfectly legitimate science which is capable of reaching conclusions with as much certitude as any laboratory discipline.

Well here's an example that perfectly demonstrates your claim:

As for Zadok's remaining point (2) let me say that I have no idea if oil CAN form over millions of years. Perhaps it can. However, I shall be long dead and my species no doubt extinct by the time we find out. I can only speculate about all the hideous misfortunes that could befall an otherwise pristine pocket of oil over millions of years.