Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What are common creationist strawmen?
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 6 of 31 (105349)
05-04-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jt
05-04-2004 6:39 PM


Just to make sure people know what straw man fallacy is (please don't crucify me for assuming ignorance in some people), here is what it is.
Straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy where the arguer distorts the opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted version of his arguer's position. In many of the cases on here that I have seen, creationists usually oversimplify certain parts of the theory of evolution and then attack the oversimplified versions.
Exaples:
But-they're-just-rats argument when I pointed out that we have observed a new species called the tetraploidy rat that emerged from the rat. Despite the fact that this new species in Argintina can't interbreed with its parent species (the normal rat) and has been classified as a completely new species due to its doubling of chromosomes, people still claimed "but they're just rats."
The usages of the terms macro and microevolution. In fact, I have seen some creationists claiming that since we do not see a fish growing wings and turn into a birld, we must conclude that macroevolution must not be true. I know that this is a little far fetch even for some creationists, but there are other examples that are very similar.
For some reason, some creationists keep bringing up abiogenesis while discussing evolution, despite the fact that some of us keep repeating that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Transitional evidence. This is the most commonly used straw man by creationists. Despite all the evidence that people have pointed out time and time and the fact that every fossil is a transitional evidence, some creationists keep claiming that since we do not have a fossil of a dog with wings and all that crap that evolution is false.
Gotta go to dinner now with some friends. Will be back later for more.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 6:39 PM jt has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 31 (105390)
05-04-2004 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jt
05-04-2004 6:39 PM


Actually, the very first post I ever made on this forum was about straw man fallacies that creationists commit. Here is the thread.
The Laminator writes:
(1) I've heard this from at least 5 people that I can remember. Unless they can see a protozoan turn into a pigeon through random mutation, to them evolution is nothing more than a false belief.
Ok, does anybody see what's wrong with this particular claim? Not only does it truly show just how ignorant these people are of the theory of evolution, it also show how insecure they are about their faith. Disproving the theory of evolution won't help promote their faith one bit.
(2) Creationism originated from ancient texts, or history books, that were written down by ancient people. Since witness accounts are always more reliable than speculation, the creationist's view is more accurate than the evolutionist's view.
Again, I see nothing but desperation in their argument. In order for this conclusion to be true and the argument to be valid, they need to assert the premise that what ancient people wrote down were completely accurate. Another premise they need to have is that ancient people were sane when they wrote these things down.
I can easily point out Greek mythology or Roman mythology and assert that we can also base on those ancient writings as true, because they were written down by the ancients. I seriously doubt that anyone these day believe in the Olympian Gods living on Mt. Olympus and sane at the same time.
(3) Some have claimed that they don't believe anything they can't see. They can't see evolution taking place, therefore, creationism is truth, not evolutionism.
First of all, the theory of evolution from the scientific point of view doesn't try to give any truth. It's there to attempt to explain some of the natural phenomena observed by people.
Secondly, these people are not supposed to believe in God, because they can't see God. If any of them claim to be able to see God, I will need to buy a bullet proof vest for myself.
(4) Believing in God is more pleasant than not believing in him, because it is better to go to heaven after death than to become nothing.
Although I admit that the idea of eternal bliss is an attractive idea, just because something sounds more pleasant doesn't mean it's true. To people 5 hundred years ago, it was more pleasant for them to think that the universe revolves around the Earth. They even burned people at the steak for believing otherwise. Again, this argument is completely rediculous.
(5) The big bang wasn't written in any history book, therefore, it never happened.
Again, false conclusion that came from false premises, if there were any. I'd like to see this person explain in his own word what the big bang theory says and how the string theory directly connects to the big bang theory.
(6) I've even heard some that claimed God spoke to them in person.
I am very very afraid of these people, because I don't know when "God" will tell them to go to the top of a building and start snipering people.
(7) Only weak minded people believe in the theory of evolution.
This argument was made by someone only yesterday. After a couple posts from this person, it became very apparent that she doesn't know a thing about the theory of evolution. In fact, she said that she'd read a book on evolution before and found it completely unbelievable. When asked what part of the book she had trouble believing, she said that she don't remember a thing about the book. And get this, she didn't even know how natural selection works.
(8) Some have claimed that evolution tend to have a goal, which leads to a higher power that controls it.
Coincidently, this guy had absolutely no idea what natural selection was, how mutation could benefit or condemn a species, and why it takes millions of years for evolution to work. This is also the same guy that wanted to see a protozoan evolve into a pigeon and made the assertion that evolution has a purpose.
After a few posts from this guy, it became very clear that he doesn't know squat about the scientific method or what it means to be scientific. He is some kind of leader for a youth group at his church. This is a very scary fact, as we have someone in a position to permanently affect today's youth and he is obviously as uneducated as the youths he teaches.
(9) Speciation is make-belief, because we've never observed it happening.
Ok, besides the millions of years worth of fossile records, we are seeing new species of plants springing up everyday. We've also recently discovered a brand new species of rat that only came into being this generation. In 1997, they found the polyploid rat in Argintina. This rat, which has twice as many number of chromosomes as other rat species, came about through some errors in mitosis or meiosis in the sex organs of some normal rats.
(10) Scientists will ultimately say "I don't know..." when asked enough about a subject. Therefore, scientists are really the ignorant ones, and the children of God are really the educated ones.
When I heard this argument, all I wanted to do was get up and leave, because I didn't want to argue with a person that was obviously willing to crap anything out of his butthole to support his belief.
First of all, no good scientist in his right mind would claim to know everything. That is the strongest part of science: to be able to acknowledge that current scientific knowledge doesn't have an answer for everything. That is why scientists continue to learn new things themselves.
Secondly, if you ask a physicist about the theory of gravity enough question, he will admit that he doesn't know. To come to the conclusion that evolution is false because a biologist can't answer certain question is like saying things will fall upward because the physicist can't answer everything about gravity (this example was put forth by someone I know).
I can go on and on and on with the rediculous arguments made by creationists. As my philosophy professor put it, these people are doing nothing but "blow hot air out of their buttholes" to make their argument.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 6:39 PM jt has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 10 of 31 (105442)
05-05-2004 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jt
05-04-2004 6:39 PM


Oh, here is my favorite. I'm sure many of you have heard this argument before.
If you leave a bunch of scrap metal out in the open and let them sit there, they will never evolve into a computer. Therefore, organisms can't evolve. This logic only concludes that evolution is nonsense.
People that make this argument have a total lack of understanding of the theory of evolution. Here are some of the reasons:
1) The theory of evolution only apply to living things.
2) The smallest unit of organisms that can evolve is a population.
3) Individuals absolutely cannot evolve.
4) The analogy gives out a negative pressure differential.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 6:39 PM jt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2004 6:11 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 31 (105466)
05-05-2004 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jt
05-04-2004 6:39 PM


Here is another classic one that I forgot about. You can read the post here Message 22.
almeyda writes:
Evolution is a religion because all religion is is a belief system and since Evolution is still a theory and not fact,Then its a religion...

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 6:39 PM jt has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 19 of 31 (105524)
05-05-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Parasomnium
05-05-2004 11:12 AM


Re: TOE for life only?
While in the shower and brushing my teeth, I actually thought up of some reasons why I still stand by my statement that ToE only apply to living things. Gotta rush to class. Post later.
By the way, just noticed your sig. Very funny. I think it's one of the better quotes of Desdemona.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2004 11:12 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2004 11:45 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 21 of 31 (105583)
05-05-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Parasomnium
05-05-2004 6:11 AM


Re: TOE for life only?
Parasomnium writes:
Are you sure, Lam? I have made a computer programme that uses the principles of random mutation and um... some sort of selection (since it is in the computer I can't very well call it natural selection, can I?), to let a population of possible but not very effective solutions to a certain problem evolve towards a population of highly effective solutions. (The problem in question is that of the 'Traveling Salesman', you probably know it.) Although I would like to take credit for creating life inside my computer, I realise it's an untenable position. Nevertheless, I think it proves that the theory of evolution can be applied to non-living systems.
No, it doesn't prove that the theory of evolution also apply to nonliving thing.
Permit me to give an analogy.
One of the important part of the theory of gravity is that in order for something to have gravity it must have mass. The more mass, the stronger it's gravitational pull on other things.
I used to have a program (before I formated my harddrive then noticed that I have lost the original cd) that simulates the effect of gravity. What I was able to do with the program was assign certain gravitational strength to certain objects. I could even change the universal constant.
Based on your reasoning, the theory of gravity also apply to things that doesn't have mass, like those objects in my program. That is nonsense.
Going back to your program, it is not carrying out evolution. It is only demonstrating how evolution occur using certain concepts and mechanisms of evolution. In other words, computer simulations do not count.
Besides your computer, which I have shown that you can't use a computer simulation to "prove" certain parts of the theories to be wrong, can you think of anything nonliving that also exhibit the same characteristics described by the theory of evolution?
By the way, I am sure I thought of at least 5 other reasons why your logic is flawed when I was brushing my teeth. For the life of me, I can't think of them now. Too much philosophical discussion on animal rights/interests makes you lose your ideas.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2004 6:11 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2004 4:45 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 23 of 31 (105784)
05-05-2004 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Parasomnium
05-05-2004 4:45 PM


Re: TOE for life only?
Sorry to disappoint you. I didn't know I was running for perfection or anything.
I'm going to start another thread about this issue before I get banned by the bosses. This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread's topic.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2004 4:45 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Parasomnium, posted 05-06-2004 3:22 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 25 of 31 (105816)
05-06-2004 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Parasomnium
05-06-2004 3:22 AM


Re: TOE for life only?
Parasomnium writes:
How far can one stray from the path before it becomes 'off-topic'? The topic is common creationist strawmen. You mentioned the scrap heap argument as an example and commented that one of the reasons it doesn't hold water is that evolution only applies to living things. I objected to that line of thought with an example. I ask you now: how far off-topic are we? Aren't we still discussing the validity of one reason why a certain argument is or is not a strawman?
The reason I think this is off-topic is because we both agree that making a statement like "a pile of rock will not evolve into a computer" or "a pile of scrap metal will not evolve into an airplane" to refute evolution is straw man.
I listed a few reasons why this is straw man, and we disagreed on one of the reasons. Unless you think that making assertion that since "a pile of rock can't evolve into a computer" then biological evolution can't exist to be not a straw man, what we have been discussing about is off-topic.
Regardless of what we might decide on whether the theory of evolution can be applied to non-living things or not, oversimplifying the ToE like that to refute it is straw man, period.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Parasomnium, posted 05-06-2004 3:22 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Parasomnium, posted 05-06-2004 4:54 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 26 of 31 (105817)
05-06-2004 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Parasomnium
05-06-2004 3:22 AM


Re: TOE for life only?
7 of 9...I mean Parasomnium writes:
Don't be offended, Lam. I just think that your reasoning is flawed, which I find uncharacteristic, based on what I've seen from you so far.
No offense taken. I am by no means perfect. I've made flawed reasonings in the past, and I am bound to make some more flawed reasonings in the future.
By the way, thanx for the compliment ("...which I find uncharacteristic, based on what I've seen from you so far.").
This message has been edited by Lam, 05-06-2004 03:19 AM

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Parasomnium, posted 05-06-2004 3:22 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 29 of 31 (105906)
05-06-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Parasomnium
05-06-2004 4:54 AM


Re: TOE for life only?
Parasomnium writes:
Lam, are you saying we can only stay on-topic here by disagreeing about something being a strawman or not? As soon as we agree on something being a strawman, anything we say is off-topic? The finer nuances of the matter, are they off-topic? I know you are straight thinking, but isn't this a bit over the top?
Although I realise that this meta-discussion about on- or off-topicness is really off-topic, I'd like a second opinion. AdminTL? Other Admins? Anyone?
Sounds like a new thread to me.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Parasomnium, posted 05-06-2004 4:54 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024