judge

Ya gotta admit though if we sustituted "Theory of Evolution" for "dicipline of HJ scholarship" , you would kinda sound like a creationist.

dog-on

If I were to posit that the ToE was built on such, I suppose you would have a point. However, I did not and you don't...

If you believe that the HJ position does not rely on the fallacies above, either you have some new and exciting evidence to bring to the table, of which I am woefully unaware, or you are simply spouting an absurdity.

judge

I dont promote HJ or necessarily believe it. I can see similarities between creationists and JMythers thats all.

A short time ago I pulled Doherty up for misquoting part of pauls letter to rome. He removed a word so that the phrase made it look like it supported his theory.
Just the kind of sneaky thing creationists do.
Its here. After I pulled him up the earl doherty fanclub came out crying like babies. Just as creationists do in similar situations.

GakuseiDon

If you posited that the ToE was built like that, you would be a creationist. And THAT's the point. It's an ANALOGY, people. It's an analogy for how the fringe believe the mainstream is hopelessly biased. And of course the fringe regard the mainstream as being biased; how can they not? If the mainstream would only think like the fringe, then the mainstream would get over their bias...

It's like the concept of analogy suddenly becomes difficult to grasp when it is used against mythicism. As Toto states, the analogy of creationism can also be used against HJ proponents. Such is the nature of analogies. That the analogy is true of some mythicists doesn't mean that ALL mythicists are like that. It just means some are unthinking drones who don't know a sublunar realm from a subway sandwich. And no doubt that equally applies to some historicists. But so what?

dog-on

I am not talking about Doherty, or about any particular JM position. I am talking about the HJ position, and as such, that your analogy applies equally well to it. As your analogy applies to mutually exclusive positions, your analogy is worthless.

judge

Who cares?
I am, and Im talking about Doherty to give you a concrete example of how a J Myther, acts like a creationist.

spin

Jeffrey Gibson has never shown himself here to be particularly constructive. Such an offer would be hard to take seriously.

You always think the worse of people. It's your problem to deal with.

Academia is not a conducive context for exploring ideas, especially ones that so challenge the industry standard. Most of the time when you aren't dealing with annoying students, you're toadying to those with more secure chairs than yours, so you don't have much time to get on with what interests you, and when someone comes along who's on about something that's off your map, how would you react?

There's no need to avoid anyone. Others do the avoiding. The enterprising independent scholar gets on with their business the best they can.

spin

It's just the kind of sneaky thing you catch rs academics doing frequently. Do stop the bullshit. If you want to try to develop a case for intellectual bankruptcy, why not start with bigger fish, like those who translate our bibles?

spin

The subtle art of invective is full of analogy. You're not facile enough to believe that the particular choice of analogy was innocent.

Actually, you seem to misunderstand what you are trying to deal with. It's not a matter of thinking--thinking like the fringe--but one of evidence. If your evidence is not considered, how you think doesn't matter.

As does the subtle art of invective, when you're trying to keep a straight face.

The analogy is not functional because of its undertones that do not survive explanation. There is no way to maintain the analogy without the notions of backwardness and inbred thought of the creationist being conveyed in the application of the analogy. Unless you can find a way to detach the undertones, the analogy will remain inappropriate. And you are quite aware of this.

Toto

Anyone can go to that link and see that the mistake was yours, and that this has nothing to do with creationism.