The Right Way to Debunk

Keep it short and sharp -- got it.The problem I have there is that a creo can write a short, sharp post which in essence is a list of erroneous assertions, each of which takes a substantial post in itself to debunk. Then they complain that my posts are too long.I've been picking one or two things out of each regurgipost and addressing those, then saying I can address the rest if anyone wants me to. Funny but they never do.

This is hilarious. I could use this. "How does the sun burn? Discuss."Presumably they think that an explosion would ignite the whole of Jupiter. The Cassini and Gallileo probes both photographed lightning on Jupiter, which presumably ought to be enough to make it go "poof."

The right way to debunk is the topic. I think Percy is telling us that you simply answer each of the assertions with "this isn't true" or "that is wrong" or somesuch.

I want to be sure it is understood that I believe that addressing claims with evidence-based rebuttals represents the core of what we want to do here, but I'm suggesting that a different approach might be called for when someone is only repeating the same assertion over and over again. Once the number of repetitions makes it clear that this is what is happening, then I think this other approach might be appropriate.The approach requires avoiding the context of the assertion as much as is possible. The appropriate reply to the repeated assertion, "Evolution is just a fairy tale for grownups," is not, "Evolution is not a fairy tale, it is science." As soon as you say "fairy tale" you're just banging home that false assertion one more time.Rather, just use the simple reply, "Evolution is a well established scientific theory founded upon evidence gathered over more than a century and a half."To repeat: when confronted with someone in parrot mode, avoid their context at all costs in your response. To do otherwise just helps cement the false assertion in the minds of others.--Percy

I think this is a good point Percy. I will do my best to apply it.The parrot-mode I get in post after post is:Evolution says rocks can turn into humans.
Life is too complex to have evolved by random chance.
Science is a conspiracy because other conspiracies exist.I have refuted these a dozen times over. New strategies will be very useful.

Russ Tanner's main strategy seems to be volume. Maybe you just need to learn to type faster.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

I spent hours this morning refuting a regurgipost of some Henry Morris rubbish about how radiometric and isochron dating are unreliable. A tall order for someone who doesn't understand these things very well. At least the poster I was replying to is throwing out points like that, even if they are copied from the creationist overlords. Others there usually are deliberately vague, avoid science issues altogether, or are completely on another planet.I had no idea there'd be so much interest in my link to that forum. You guys are good. I'm not sure where all this is going to end up but at least at the moment I'm not trying to keep up with several prolific creo posters by myself. Anyone reading is of course welcome to join, but if too many evos go there they might perhaps get suspicious that I recruited reinforcements . . .added in edit Yep, that is what has happened. I've had to fess up. Russ is going to find a way to get rid of us I suspect.added in edit RAZD I'm almost falling out of my chair laughing. You are so taking the piss, as we say over the pond. SoSick is a complete nutcase and she also seems to know even less about science than the others on that forum. I am stuyding your style, it's masterful. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

I saw. You could also invite them here to share their knowledge. Then they can see how this forum operates.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Like dealing with Simple, you need to talk past him, in part because he dodges everything rational.One can also say "This is still wrong, and just repeating it doesn't make it any more valid."Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Linda, I've just spent a few minutes at the site you linked to, and posted a bit, too.What I can't help but notice is all of the topics.My paraphrases:"Amalgam fillings are poisoning us."
"Flouride is poisoning us."
"Vaccines are poisoning us."
The medical establishment is evil, incompetent, and just out for money."
"Liberals are the cause of everything that is wrong with the world."
"All drug regulation should be eliminated""Evolution is just a scam and is perpetuated out of greed and pig-headedness on the part of scientists."
"Evolution results in people going on murderous shooting sprees."What I am having touble with is how you can be surprised in the least that any of these sloppy-thinking, irrational, poorly-educated religious wackos refuse to listen to scientific evidence when it comes to Evolution.They don't pay any attention whatsoever to scientific evidence regarding healthcare, so why should they treat Evolution any differently?Lastly, doesn't it make you even the tiniest bit uncomfortable to be nodding and agreeing with these people when they bash vaccines or grow hysterical over amalgam fillings, all based upon anecdotal evidence, hearsay, and emotional appeals rather than scientific evidence, but yet you then turn around and consider them idiots for rejecting the ToE?Doesn't it give you any pause at all to do this? Don't you find your thinking and behavior utterly contradictory?Most importantly, consider the possibility that if they are so boneheaded and stupid and rejecting of science and completely wrong regarding Evolution, then it is likely they are similarly idiotic and completely wrong about all of the health stuff too?If they are rejecting the Toe and the science supporting it for irrational reasons, then they are very likely doing the same thing regarding vaccines and amalgam fillings, so maybe you should rethink your belief in all of those things, considering their demonstrated idiocy, willful ignorance, and close-mindedness?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Hi Nator, missed ya Let me turn this around.I came to this forum in admiration of the scientific knowledge here, the intelligence, the logical arguments. And I enjoyed watching creos squirm.I learned a heckuva lot very quickly. There are a number of what I'd call Dawkins-type dogmatic skeptics here and I never had looked into what was before, but I learned as they proceeded to "debunk" my own arguments. Do you know what I did after I left here? I looked up alternative science sites to get some satisfaction. I found out about Rupert Sheldrake. I'm much more clear now on where I stand with my own beliefs and where others stand here. Maybe at some point when I've done still more thinking, and feel more confident, I'll start discussing those things again here.As I said earlier, the evidence for evolution is there for me to see. I can see fossils, I can see that they came out of strata in the geological column. It's a bit different from telling me that this drug will help me or this herb will harm me; that interpretation is more prone to being biased by the agenda of the claimant -- even if these opinions come from clinical studies published in journals.BTW there are other people around the area of that creationist forum who are not creationists. I just seem to be the only one who wants to spend the time and energy talking to them.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

How should this be interpreted? Do you mean, "I found out about Rupert Sheldrake and discovered the true science behind alternative medicine"? Or do you mean, "I found out about Rupert Sheldrake and now understand the methods employed by charlatans"? From the perspective of using the scientific method to understand the real world, there is no difference between evolution and medicine. For some reason your analytical mind turns off when it comes to health claims, hence you end up casting accusations of bias at medical researchers while believing they don't apply to evolution researchers.Yet your "friends" over at that other website are constantly casting charges of bias at evolutionists. They're employing the exact same devices against both evolution and traditional medicine that you employ only against traditional medicine.But it doesn't matter what the target of these fallacious methods are, these methods are still fallacious. It isn't the targeted scientific fields that are at fault but the methods being employed against them. Anecdotal evidence is the worst sort, except of course for made-up evidence. Until you understand that it is your flawed opinion of what constitutes valid evidence that stands at the core of your wildly inconsistent positions, your mind will continue to straddle the rational and irrational worlds.--Percy

Thank you kindly for the advice Percy. A number of people here did say to me that if something works for me, then that's OK. The herbs and vitamins I take work for me. I learned about some aspects of what I'm doing from another area of that forum. You see, though some of the people there go to extremes and totally deny reality, seeing conspiracies in everything, they do appear to have a redeeming virtue. That is, they do not allow themselves to be limited by what orthodoxy says is right and correct. For example Russ may exhibit the usual bigotry of a fundamentalist, but he does not belong to a church; he seems to think he's got it all worked out himself and I think he'd like to have his own followers. (I've called him on his messiah complex before. I've also asked him in the past to come here but strangely he never showed any interest.)Great discoveries do not usually stem from people who do not question whether the system, whatever system that may be, has got it wrong in some way. Rupert Sheldrake would fall into this category I think. I knew you'd like him He's bold and imaginative int the classic mold of the British eccentric. Please don't start a thread on him yet though, I don't have the time and I haven't gone into his ideas in a lot of depth yet so I wouldn't be able to argue very well anyway.You seem to be frustrated that the discussions on the creationist forum jump around everywhich way. I agree, it's hard to keep people on topic. I also think RAZD is going to end up banging his head against the wall with the particular people he's talking with. Can I ask what drives you both to talk with people like that? What makes you feel it is a good use of your time?Nator, if you're reading, I can't seem to find your posts there . . .?

Hi Linda, I went to the linked website and straight away got a virus alert.Just giving you a heads up.

Strange, I've got good antivirus software and it's never flagged a problem with that site. Three people from here have recently joined -- I wonder if they have had any trouble?