|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Guide to Creationist Tactics | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes indeed: the argument that a hundred bad arguments must "surely" add up to a good one.
Yeah, it's rubbish, isn't it? I nearly put into my list a class of type -1 errors. The "all our rubbish must add up to truth" nonsense would fit nicely in there, along with the false dichotomy and the argument from design. The reason I call these type minus one errors is that they aren't even errors in epistemology, but mere logical fallacies. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Funny to see that Randman has ALREADY mentioned Haeckel in his showcased response to this thread despite the fact that it has been acknowledged as an error countless times.
Sounds like a 3b.i to me!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
LOL
reminds me of the line "a fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject" ...? Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's a type 1 error if they claim that recapitulation is part of the theory of evolution; it's a type 2 error if they claim that recapitulation is a consequence of the theory of evolution; and it's a 3b.i error if they point out that Haeckel was a stinkin' liar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I have a tool that I find especially usefull when determining whether I am up against a real scientist or a Creationist.
First, I give the fella a good look over. If he's short and orange with green hair and has a tendency to sing the Oompa Loompa song, I usually just save my breath for a better debate. Of course, all your guys' other tips are pretty usefull too J0N
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Codegate Member (Idle past 840 days) Posts: 84 From: The Great White North Joined: |
schrafinator writes: I have never heard or read anyone knowledgeable about evolution claim this. I completely agree with you. The problem lies with the partially educated that 'know' that creationism isn't true and have jumped on the evo bandwagon without understanding it completely. (I know evoultion isn't a bandwagon, but to these people it is.) Reading the popular press or watching the general consumtion science shows it is very easy to get the impression that we do have a complete fossil record of all that has happened in the past. That was all I was trying to get across.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Creationist: Let's debate the theory of evolution ...
Evolutionist: Sure! Creationist ... as dictated to me by the voices in my head. And let's debate the statements that you've made ... Evolutionist: Fine! Creationist: ... as relayed to me by the magic pixies. And let's examine your underlying assumptions ... Evolutionist: Fine by me. Creationist: ... as explained to me by Jack Chick. And let me challenge your opinions ... Evolutionist: Challenge away! Creationist ... which I just made up. --- The weird thing about these childish daydreams is that some creationists cling to them in the face of the actual opinions of evolutionists, no matter how clearly expressed. This is the final state of mental paralysis; a retreat into a comforting fantasy world from which there is, it seems, no return.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2535 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I'm surprised you were so nice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm surprised you were so nice. Hey, look. Having had me removed from the thread, randman is still lying and twisting my opinions. Undisturbed by reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As randman is still drivelling on, let's use him as a case study.
--- Randman: My view is he has avoided and evaded the reality of genetic loss which others do admit occurs via isolation... Me: I have proved that in the long term, if total population and mutation rate are constant, this increases genetic diversity. Randman: You claim you have proven genetic diversity always increases, right? Me: No, of course not. What a ridiculous lie. Randman: So it's a lie, eh? You forget you wrote this. "I have proved that in the long term, if total population and mutation rate are constant, this increases genetic diversity." --- I mean, it's astonishing. The guy is telling ridiculous lies in order to ... to do what? To convince me that my opinion is that "genetic diversity always increases". But he can't. I'm the world's leading authority on what I think. I can also read exactly what I said. So can everyone else. Whom does he hope to deceive --- besides himself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2535 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
yeah, I saw that.
I wonder if he realizes the difference between proving something in one instance and proving that same thing in all instances? something tells me he doesn't. he also took your statement out of context, away from the math you did, to try and prove his point. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
For what its worth, I think it is obscene that you cannot continue in the showcase thread.
You must be so frustrated that the oddball can go crying to daddy Percy and have you removed. The Showcase is a farce. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It's Randman. That sort of thing is a big part of the REASON he's in showcase.
In the argument over his assertions that talkorigins.org is a "propaganda site" he spent several posts trying to argue that an essay that explicitly stated that universal common descent should not be considered a fact was in reality asserting that universal common descent WAS a fact. I personally belive that he should be considered mentally ill because it appears that he is unable to read anything without twisting it to fit his preconceptions. He is just not stupid enough to actually think that he could get away with some of the blatant misrepresentations he has tried to foist on this group.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
One of the most common tactics I see used is misapplication of dating methods. An example is their reference to using 14C to show stuff is younger than claimed or using longer range dating methods to show that material that is actually young dates as older. The reason that this is a con is that each method has a range where it will be effective. Outside that range what you get is a nonsense answer. also, i tend to see claims about using c-14 to date inorganic material which is impossible.
A claim I have seen on many (unfortunately Christian) sites is of dating Hawaiian basalt using the potassium-argon method. The samples were known to be only 200 or so years old yet they got readings that were in the hundreds of thousands of years. Well, frankly no shit. That is to be expected. The potassium-argon method has a usable range of from some 100,000 years to about 4,000,000,000 years. no, the dates that study gave were accurate. it's the creationists that lie -- the study was dating inclusions, not the new rock. inclusions, by definition, are older than the surrounding rock. this is basic geology, but that seems to be something creationists either don't understand, or want to decieve people about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Here's another one:
Post on a science topic about how god belief explains it. Then ascribe every attempt to evaluate the god explanation on the same basis as they do the science evaluations to an anger and hatred of your god, turn it into a poor martyred christian thread.
Message 166 it is, you're right. It's just that I wasn't getting my questions answered without being ridiculed for being closed minded or an idiot or something of that nature. It seems that my comments and questions are not wanted here. There are a lot of very bitter people that harbor very negative feelings about God. This is out of my control. Oh well. I'll just start another thread. I think taking the moral high ground and not ridiculing everyone that disagrees with me would be the right thing to do however...do you agree? And don't forget to project your anger and bitterness onto the others while you are at it, doing exactly what you claim the others are doing to you, but insist that you are taking the moral high ground .... with the usual passive aggressive bit too. Enjoy. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024