Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 31 of 136 (368294)
12-07-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
12-07-2006 6:02 PM


Re: another poor martyred christian ...
I think others have already pointed out that little described in this thread represents bait and switch tactics. Would anyone object if I changed the title, perhaps to "A Guide to Creationist Tactics"?
I wish the people piling on DivineBeginning would cut him a break. Am I the only one who sees progress in his attempts to unravel God from his thoughts on science? I think some are reading the way God keeps sneaking back into his thinking as disingenuousness on his part, but I think it's just an indication of how hard it is to change familiar ways of thinking.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2006 6:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2006 7:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 136 (368298)
12-07-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
12-07-2006 7:15 PM


Re: another poor martyred christian ...
Tactics is good.
... but I think it's just an indication of how hard it is to change familiar ways of thinking.
okay chief.
He also, imh(ysa)o, needs to put down the gauntlet of imposing his presumed reactions of others -- if he is going to go to the high road he has to walk up the hill first, and leave the dirt of the low road behind.
(I put my answer here to keep it off the other thread - and so he can answer as he desires eh?)

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 12-07-2006 7:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 136 (373147)
12-31-2006 1:52 AM


A few words from randman's thread:
pretty much unchallenged and undebatable really
This, after he has fled screaming to the moderators to beg that he should not be challenged or debated.
Randman, your beliefs are both challenged and debated, for example by me, but you are too much of a coward and a hypocrite to face up to this like a man, so you have to hide from any challenge or debate like a pathetic coward.
So you run crying to the moderators to protect you from challenge or debate. And then, when you have suppressed any challenge or debate, you pretend that your ideas are "unchallenged and undebatable" like the cowardly liar that you are.
Here is a challenge. Here is an offer of debate. I expect you to run from them like the whining lying coward that you are.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 136 (373153)
12-31-2006 2:43 AM


Creationist Tactics
In case anyone missed the thread, here's the link.
A Guide To The Tactics Of Evolutionists
And that's the bottom line, isn't it? When Randman wishes to lie and lie and lie and lie about the claims of "evolutionists", the thing that really terrifies him, more than anything, is to have a real "evolutionist", such as myself, tell the truth.
So the poor little thing had to go blubbering and whimpering to the moderators to say that since he started the thread, he ought to be able to whine out his drivel of lies without any opposition.
And then, having got himself confined to his pitiful padded cell where no-one can debate him, the lunatic anounces that his halfwitted lies are "unchallenged and undebatable".
Randman: your lies are challenged, and debate would be easy. If you weren't a coward. If you hadn't run snicelling and crying from anyone who might challenge or debate you.
Hey, randman, come to any thread where you haven't blubbered and whimpered and begged to be sheltered from debate, and you will find yourself both challenged and debated.
I will debate you, if you don't run away. I will tell the truth. And you, it seems, are terrified of this.
C'mon. My truth against your lies. Or do you know that all your lies are ****?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by AdminModulous, posted 12-31-2006 3:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 35 of 136 (373156)
12-31-2006 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
12-31-2006 2:43 AM


Inadequate levels of respect
This thread is not the catchall insult randman thread. Its purpose isn't to needle, hector and goad. Indeed, these are all specifically against the forum rules.
Also - randman had the decency to make an effort to refrain from responding to this tone so far, and the tone is getting worse as the thread has progressed.
Randman has been suspended a number of times because of his tone, and in many of those cases it was positively polite compared with the disrespect you have put forward here. Calling a member a lunatic, a liar and a coward shan't be tolerated.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-31-2006 2:43 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2921 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 36 of 136 (373170)
12-31-2006 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
11-17-2006 11:35 AM


One of my favorites
One creationist tactic that I see over and over again on EvC that chaps my ass is the repeated cut & paste from other creo sources. The simplest form is literally cutting and pasting from a creationist website and claiming it your own. Oftentimes this includes the refs as well. A google search of a sentence or two of these posts more often then not turns up a match.
More sophisticated plagirists rewrite the info before regurgitating it. These are often revealed by their citing a ref that has a mistake, such as a mispelling of the author's name or pages that are wrong for the cite. One recent example cited page 50-51, when the actual page was 150-150. Innocent enough except I found multiple creo webpages with the 50-51 cite which indicatd that the poster was just copying what they read rather than looking at the original citation.
As I have stated many times before, if any of my students did this I would fail them without hesitation. Obviously many creationists hold themselves above the 8th commandment (and probably the 9th as well) when they take the words and thoughts of other creos and claim them as their own. Freakin' hypocrites!

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
"A Fish Called Wanda"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 11-17-2006 11:35 AM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 136 (373176)
12-31-2006 10:20 AM


Moving Goalposts and other tactics - Limbosis
Limbosis moving the goalposts: starting at Message 94
Now RAZD, what we can do to test a clear distinction between this and evolution is as follows:
We can try to make a single new animal species, on our own, through artificial selection.
When it was pointed out that this had in fact been done, AND that this "test" would not produce a positive result for his hypothesis we start to get the song and dance: Message 94
That's right. And, how do we know that it's not being mistaken as speciation?
Furthermore, do we know for a fact that whenever a new strain gets "far" enough away from its species of origin so as to become sexually isolated, that speciation has taken place?
Song and dance around the issue rather than addressing it. To which I replied;
Because it fits the definition of speciation as used by evolutionary biologists.
Again this goes to the argument in Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.
quote:
If you are addressing the validity of a science then you use the terms as defined in the science.
If you don't use the terms as defined in the science then you are not addressing the science.

All you need is a competing explanation to rule out that certainty.
Here, let me just make one up for you (as if it's difficult at all).
Just making up a hypothesis from thin air is NOT the same as making a scientific theory.
In conclusion I asked for another test, as the previous one was invalidated.
There was no answer.
Next we see Message 212
While it remains difficult to show how life began here, science itself suggests that it could not have happened by chance.
So, for our purposes, we can go straight back to the origin(s) of life on earth, and start there.
Even if speciation did occur, even if evolution was an actual process, nothing would have properly explained the initiation of life itself.
To which I replied Message 296
I'll take this as tacit recognition that the "speciation" test for your concept has been falsified per Message 1 and that there is no follow-up test proposed for validating the overall concept.
The sonic boom was the moving of goal posts at hypersonic speeds from speciation ("micro"evolution) all the way back to the origin of life (abiogenesis, not evolution), thus leaving evolution as the best overall explanation for the diversity of all life as we currently know it, ever since that seminal event of {first life} by whatever definition and process.
In the process this leaves the original concept as a fairly useless philosophical hypothesis that doesn't lead to any scientifically valid results.
The response was Message 298
RAZD, not once have I conceded the process of evolution.
To review, I had arbitrarily conceded to the issue of speciation. That wasn't because I agreed with that concept either, but because the question of speciation, itself, was not well-defined. This concession was done strategically and specifically to develop my main idea, with enough room to take it one or two steps further.
If you recall, I clearly stated that a lack of speciation wasn't necessary to do that.
Yes, there are conditions that exist, which would lend themselves in support for the theory of evolution. Big deal.
What this does do is leave his original concept totally worthless, even if it were NOT invalidated by the "test" results: what you are left with is "design in the gaps" - design can only be posited when we are ignorant of the process, rather than predict results that can be tested, the way evolution can be and has been tested.
This "concession" does not address the FACT that the point was refuted, but rather it just denies the reality so that Limbosis can cling to this concept in spite of the invalidation -- this kind of denial is another creationist ploy.
It is simply a theory.
Evolution is a tested scientific theory based on evidence.
Believe it or not, the phrase "a fabricator of life exists" is a theory.
This logical fallacy was already addressed in Message 188.
This is not a scientific theory, so saying they are both theories is equivocating on the definition of theory. This is a logical fallacy common to creationist argument: that any pie-in-the-sky concept is the equivalent of a scientific theory based on facts; thus it is a false comparison from the start.
The best this could be is a hypothesis because it is untested, but even that is generous as there is no test given to test the validity of the concept. To me the levels are:
  • Concept: your average pie-in-the-sky idea made up ad hoc and may or may not be based on evidence,
  • Hypothesis: a concept that is testable (even if the test has not been identified or tried), and
  • Scientific Theory: a concept based on evidence that has been tested and that has passed the test.
The "fabricator of life" is in reality just a philosophical concept, there is no evidence and no testable result.
Evolution is a scientific theory, based on evidence and it has already been tested.
They are not the same. They are not even close.
Now, if you want to talk about likelihoods, we can do that.
That would be changing the topic rather than addressing the issues that have been raised where the concept has been refuted or rendered intellectually insignificant.
What WOULD apply to my argument is the idea that many of the organs in our bodies can be treated as animals themselves.
Another goalpost moving. Organs do not reproduce themselves and as such do NOT fit the common definitions of life (see Definition of Life).
Now, kindly move my goal posts back, please.
I didn't move them. The only way the goalposts can be moved back is for Limbosis to go back and address the issues and not pretend that they have not been refuted, invalidated and rendered insignificant. He needs to stick to his topic and be prepared to admit when he is wrong.
Seeing as that thread is closed, that will be difficult without opening a new thread.
What we see in these posts is denial of contradictory evidence, rampant moving of goalposts, attempts to change the subject, and equivocation on definitions.
Not once is the issue of no longer having a testable concept addressed.
This post is NOT an answer to his post, but just points out the tactics used and why they are wrong.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 136 (373213)
12-31-2006 5:13 PM


The Quote Mine
I'm surprised no one has brought up my absolute, all-time favorite creationist tactic: the Quote Mine. Admittedly (with a nod to Mod), it can conceivably be considered a form of the Gish Gallop - and is often used in the same way, albeit written rather than spoken. However, I feel it deserves its own category. It combines the worst type of argument from authority with dishonesty, misrepresentation, and misdirection. I call the tactic "argument by spurious quotation". I did a nice (if I say so myself) dissection of this tactic on this forum a while back (see, Of Creationists and Quotations), using a then-current creationist poster as an example.
Anyway, my two cents on the topic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 12-31-2006 5:32 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 136 (373220)
12-31-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Quetzal
12-31-2006 5:13 PM


Re: The Quote Mine
Actually, it was just announced. Indie 4 will be Indiana Jones and the Creationist Quote Mine.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Quetzal, posted 12-31-2006 5:13 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 136 (377428)
01-16-2007 5:49 PM


Here Herepton reminds us of some tactics not merely common, but vulgar:
* Get the theory of evolution completely wrong
* Make statements with no evidence and whine when challenged to produce it
* Moan about how stupid "evolutionists" are while ignoring the fact that this category includes the world's best scientists.
* Declare yourself the victor without producing a scap of a shred of a scitilla of evidence against evolution.
---
I think it's hilarious that he's whining about "censorship" on a thread where, by creationist demand, I am not allowed to answer him.

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2007 6:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 43 by Jaderis, posted 01-16-2007 8:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 136 (377433)
01-16-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2007 5:49 PM


More on Tactics
I think you're forgetting "proof by martyrdom", which is merely to incubate the most infuriating, dishonest, and objectionable style of posting possible, making sure to break as many completely fair rules as possible, and then declare unconditional victory in the debate as both sides of the forum take steps to reign in your unruly behavior.
I don't understand why "argument by providing evidence and defending against rebuttal" is such a rarely-employed creationist tactic. (Well, I mean I guess I do, but I'm wondering why creationists think creationists never use it.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2007 5:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5744 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 42 of 136 (377445)
01-16-2007 7:30 PM


Goalpost moving
Obviously a tactic. The most obvious example is asking for an instance where information or genetic diversity increases. And then when such an instance is provided, arguing that this still does not account for macroevolution, when the original question was not about macroevolution, but about information increase. I haven't been here long, but I must have seen that one at least four times.

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3415 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 43 of 136 (377452)
01-16-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2007 5:49 PM


* Declare yourself the victor without producing a scap of a shred of a scitilla of evidence against evolution.
This one is definitely one of my favorites. A sub-category for this would be "Proof by repitition" where the creationist simply makes something up, keeps repeating it in the face of sound refutation and then somewhere down the line comes out with "Now that I have proven such and such..."
Examples abound in these these threads started by the most famous practitioner of this tactic:
http://EvC Forum: Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05) -->EvC Forum: Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
http://EvC Forum: A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it -->EvC Forum: A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it
Highly amusing (albeit extremely frustrating) stuff there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2007 5:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 136 (377640)
01-17-2007 6:53 PM


Entirely Imaginary Evos
And then there's the final retreat from reality.
When you find that real evolutionists kick your butt every time, invent some imaginary evolutionists in your head, ascribe to them opinions you know perfectly well real people don't hold, and then score a solitary rhetorical victory over the imaginary voices in your head.
Here's a pretty pair
I repeat my offer to debate randman on any of his nonsense, any time he feels up to debating a real person who actually exists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2007 6:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 136 (377639)
01-17-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr Adequate
01-17-2007 6:53 PM


Entirely Imaginary Theory
... invent some imaginary evolutionists in your head, ascribe to them opinions you know perfectly well real people don't hold, ...
That goes so well with the imaginary theories ascribed to evolution as well - the "hopeful monster" theory of "macroevolution" in all it's variations: dogs giving birth to cats, cows sprouting wing stubs, fossils "caught" in the process of changing from one critter to an entirely different critter, and the like.
When you tell then what the theory really is they say that's just "micro"evolution and creationism already allows adaptation within kinds, but real evolution is something ELSE ....
You can run through 50 definitions that all support variations on the theme, and that isn't good enough because they have a creationist definition that is different ....

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2007 6:53 PM Dr Adequate 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