tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post4086018095721590350..comments2023-09-30T10:36:23.154-05:00Comments on Accidental Historian: AtF: IntroductionGedshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-34571265118484115722009-04-13T23:41:00.000-05:002009-04-13T23:41:00.000-05:00D'ya get the impression that we're just not on the...D'ya get the impression that we're just not on the same wavelength here? Because that's the vibe I'm feeling...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-48459112932735801202009-04-13T20:41:00.000-05:002009-04-13T20:41:00.000-05:00Ah, no, Geds, I didn't mean to imply that you CREA...Ah, no, Geds, I didn't mean to imply that you CREATE the idiocy. I just enjoy the way you gleefully MOCK it.hapaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-79816701641866014132009-04-13T10:35:00.000-05:002009-04-13T10:35:00.000-05:00Hey, now. I know you're the same hapax. I think ...Hey, now. I know you're the same hapax. I think that cjmr was taking an interbreak, too, and I wasn't sure if I remembered both of you being off or if I was remembering wrong.<BR/><BR/>And, no, I hadn't heard about amazonfail. That's...that's jackassery of the first degree.<BR/><BR/>Although I'm glad I could create some cozy idiocy to snuggle up with.Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-43134974224014241702009-04-13T10:21:00.000-05:002009-04-13T10:21:00.000-05:00Yes, Geds, I'm the same hapax. (Odd, though, cons...Yes, Geds, I'm the same hapax. (Odd, though, considering the meaning, how many people on These Interwebs have that as a username!)<BR/><BR/>I actually spent a good deal of yesterday posting on various library, publishing, and other book-sites about the amazonfail debacle. (If you don't know about this, google "amazonfail" as one word, and read some of the posts, and get ready to get furious)<BR/><BR/>It was nice to come here and read your essay about a comparatively familiar, low-tech, (dare I say cozy?) type of idiocy.hapaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-54824948902436361852009-04-13T08:36:00.000-05:002009-04-13T08:36:00.000-05:00Damn, now I have to worship Yhwh and the Greek Pan...Damn, now I have to worship Yhwh and the Greek Pantheon. That's going to get . . . twitchy.PersonalFailurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034292023591747601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-23357575705697412902009-04-12T23:20:00.000-05:002009-04-12T23:20:00.000-05:00Wow. Is this your first visit to the interwebs in...Wow. Is this your first visit to the interwebs in the last forty days, hapax? If so, I'm honored. Unless that was a different Slacktivite and I just don't remember so good...<BR/><BR/>And, yeah, the framing thing was more of a tangent. Like I said, it's something I've been meaning to discuss, but haven't gotten around to. Since this book is basically fan service to the creationist faithful, he's not technically framing.<BR/><BR/>But there is still a blatant misunderstanding of an opposing viewpoint that I wanted to point out. And I'm totally not going to ever get around to writing about framing, so I took what opportunity I could.Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-78979824480408900372009-04-12T22:48:00.000-05:002009-04-12T22:48:00.000-05:00Happy co-opted vernal equinox / fertility festival...Happy co-opted vernal equinox / fertility festival, Geds!<BR/><BR/>Nice bit of snark, here, but I must quarrel with this line:<BR/><BR/>"We cannot replicate gravity or evolution in a lab, yet we teach them as fact. "<BR/><BR/>As far as I know, researchers have to go to extraordinary efforts to *eliminate* gravity from any experiment. And evolution is replicated in labs ALL THE TIME -- it's pretty hard to biopharmacology, for example, without it. I myself replicated evolution in high school, and had the pretty red-eyed fruit flies to prove it.<BR/><BR/>(Speciation, now, is a bit trickier, mainly because nobody really agrees what the heck a species is anyhow)<BR/><BR/>Oh, and to come to poor old Clive Staples defense (and you know I would) -- I don't think it's quite fair to accuse him of deliberately creating bad framing. His aim, after all, wasn't so much to "convert the heathen" -- to create rigorous arguments *against* certain beliefs -- as to "confirm the Christian" -- that is, to provide a means to be *for* certain beliefs without abandoning rational thinking.<BR/><BR/>As to whether he was successful at the latter, YMMV of course. But I'm not sure that its exactly appropriate "framing" to hold him up to a standard he wasn't trying to meet.hapaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-30133304207539633812009-04-12T20:26:00.000-05:002009-04-12T20:26:00.000-05:00When discussing people who think they can figure o...When discussing people who think they can figure out genealogies by the book of Genesis, it always makes sense to default to literalist interpretations...<BR/><BR/>I've never read the book you mention, but I have noticed that Lewis is all about false arguments. <I>Mere Christianity</I> was actually a pretty good primer for how to lead an argument and act like your interpretation of things is the only way to see them.Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-18806742622430826012009-04-12T19:19:00.000-05:002009-04-12T19:19:00.000-05:00Thanks for the link!This reminds me of Beversluis'...Thanks for the link!<BR/><BR/>This reminds me of Beversluis' book about C. S. Lewis, and all the false dichotomies and straw men he would constantly set up. I credit that book with teaching me how to really tear apart a poor philosophical argument.<BR/><BR/>One comment on Genesis 6:3: this is consistent with some literal interpretations. Maybe it meant that the flood was coming in 120 years. This doesn't line up perfectly, as we've already been told Noah is 500, while the flood came when he was 600. But this is well within the reasonable parameters of what could be expected from simply putting genealogical data together at the expect of perfect chronology.<BR/><BR/>Years ago, I remember a Creation magazine article about aging and a women who was something like 123 years old. I don't know AiG's exact position on Genesis 6:3 (I've heard it both ways from YECists), but this particular article felt no need to combat claims about her age.Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.com