Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 12:37 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, PsychMJC, ringo, Tanypteryx, Taq (8 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,015 Year: 9,051/19,786 Month: 1,473/2,119 Week: 233/576 Day: 36/98 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
10Next
Author Topic:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 46 of 136 (377643)
01-17-2007 6:55 PM


Favorite Arguments
But not just of creationists ....

(1) Argument from Authority. Doesn't matter who said it or what they (really) said, it's true because {A} said it, and they're an authority on the topic.

(2) Argument from Incredulity. You just can't believe how many times this is used :laugh:.

(3) Argument from Ignorance. Usually involves a PRATT or some variation of a claim that because the author doesn't know something that nobody can know it.

(4) Straw man -- the imaginary evolutionist or the imaginary evolution theory above (previous messages).

I think a large part of the reason so many arguments take this form is due to the pervasive insidious advertising use of these logical fallacies and the failure of school to teach about logic.

But I also think that fundamentalists are pre-disposed to accepting the argument from authority as being valid. Think about it eh?

Enjoy.


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.

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3918 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 47 of 136 (377661)
01-17-2007 8:44 PM


Behe
Just noticed one that Behe uses in his book. Maybe seen it here, but it's hard to judge because the creationist actually has to have a defined position in order to use this one.

Make arguments against creationism (or ID, in Behe's case). The response you get is not a defense of ID or creationism, but "Well, that still doesn't prove why evolution is true." It may not, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is still a problem for ID.


    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 136 (377855)
01-18-2007 5:25 PM


Projection Is Funny
BTw, it's interesting that the Darwinists here are afraid to debate/discuss the issue without the cover of evo biased moderation.

... says the creationist who begged the moderators to stop me from posting on that very thread because he was afraid to debate the issues with me.

I repeat my challenge. I will debate with randfan on any portion of his gibberish, and we can both ask the moderators not to intervene.


  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 49 of 136 (378599)
01-21-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
11-17-2006 11:35 AM


The one that really gets my goat is quoting from one or two people in response to direct question to show me what you think.

Over and over and over untill you get bored and punch yourself into unconsciousness.


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

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 50 of 136 (379366)
01-23-2007 9:29 PM


The "Hidden" Assumptions ploy
Making conclusions based on assumptions that aren't stated, thus hiding them from being evaluated for logical content.

Example All Darwinists are Liars

herepton writes:

Message 1

Romans 1:25 KJV writes:

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

"Who changed the truth...." = appearance of design corresponds to invisible Designer.

"....into a lie...." = corresponds to mindless natural selection.

"....and worshipped and served the creature...." = corresponds to what Darwinists replace God with (animals are our maker). Notice how many evo avatars are of animals?

This verse was written in 58 AD and it fits the reality of Darwinism to a tee.

Ray

Premise 1: The bible is absolutely true
Premise 2: That herepton's interpretation is the only one possible

If either of these premises are false the conclusion is invalid.

Seeing as all the geological evidence points to an absence at any time for a global flood, and especially that the Grand Canyon could not have been formed by such a mechanism, means that anyone who represents the evidence to portray this mythical flood is twisting the truth into a lie eh?

Seeing as the creation of god is what is being studied the denial of that evidence would qualify as changing the truth into a lie.

Given the number of creatortionista sites that have been shown to contain false representations of the truth, that would be evidence of changing the truth into a lie. The Lucy Knee issue is a prime example.

The conclusion rests on two fallen legs and cannot stand.

Enjoy.


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.

  
but..what..of...lazarus?
Junior Member (Idle past 4438 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 01-22-2007


Message 51 of 136 (379458)
01-24-2007 9:12 AM


Ive seen the following one a few times:

Appending, "...Which is exactly what the creation model predicts!" on to a non-controversial claim or one that was presented as evidence for evolution. Its a cute rhetorical flourish but good luck getting them to lay out this creation model once theyve played this card.

--edit to include an example

Ive seen it used with an allele argument recently. When presented with the logic that new alleles must have emerged since the creation event or the flood event a creationist claimed, "Of course, this is *exactly* what the creation model predicts". Inquiries about this wonderful model went unanswered.

Edited by but..what..of...lazarus?, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2007 8:20 PM but..what..of...lazarus? has not yet responded
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2007 8:21 PM but..what..of...lazarus? has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 52 of 136 (379612)
01-24-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by but..what..of...lazarus?
01-24-2007 9:12 AM


Edited by RAZD, : duplicate post deleted


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by but..what..of...lazarus?, posted 01-24-2007 9:12 AM but..what..of...lazarus? has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 53 of 136 (379613)
01-24-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by but..what..of...lazarus?
01-24-2007 9:12 AM


"Of course, this is *exactly* what the creation model predicts"

This is like the AiG answer to speciation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

quote:
In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information.

Fun page to read - if you enjoy equivocation.


ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy

and


Click to enlarge

Click on the red arrow reply button for general reply, the green arrow button for specific message reply (also sends email to poster). Check the PEEK button to see how coding was done (can also be done during reply using PEEK MODE at the top right of the "message you're replying to"


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 51 by but..what..of...lazarus?, posted 01-24-2007 9:12 AM but..what..of...lazarus? has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 54 of 136 (380003)
01-26-2007 2:23 AM


Begging the Question/Petitio Principii
Where an assumption, usually precisely the one that is being argued, is disguised and sneaked into the premise, from which the conclusion is made.

I found an example of this at a website (http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/bigbangtheory.htm) where it was trying to disprove the 'Big Bang Theory'.

quote:
Nothing has ever come from nothing

By saying "has ever", it assumes the big bang never happened, in order to disprove the big bang!

That website also has a terrible tactic (an uncommon one, but very annoying) of PUTTING TEXT IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND RED TEXT, TO SOMEHOW ADD CREDENCE TO THE ARGUMENT!

By the way, EvoWiki has a great list of creationist fallacies: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Category:Fallacies
And, because it's a wiki, you can edit in any examples that they missed or haven't got around to doing yet.

Edited by Doddy Curumehtar, : Added wiki link


"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 55 of 136 (382683)
02-05-2007 7:23 PM


Already Answered ... aka Rob ...
Usually about 100 or so posts into a thread, and usually after repeated requests to answer a specific question, this type of creationist will say:
"I've already answered that question, go back and read the thread"
... or words to that effect, but with no link to the actual post where the "answer" was given.

Examples: Message 242, Message 248 in Is Science a Religion?.

Usually you will find that all they've done is respond to the post that had the question, but left the question unanswered.

This is similar to the "Gish Gallop" in that to show the question has yet to be answered you have to go through each previous post ... again.

At best it is lazy. At worst it is dishonest, although it may be dishonest to oneself (ie - believing that an unrelated response is an answer).

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : examples added


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.

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 56 of 136 (383005)
02-06-2007 4:22 PM


Here is one I just ran across....
An anonymous student (I assume) subscribed me to to the Good News newsletter, presumably to save my soul or to annoy me. Luckily I love reading this kind of material! This isn't directly creationist, but is representative of a tactic I have encountered before.

Well the Jan-Feb issue has a article in their "God, Science, and the Bible" section about the recent discovery of Philistine temples in Israel that confirm the story of Samson (or at least demonstrate it is an accurate desciption of such temples). I have no issue with biblical archaeology, in fact it is an interesting area.

However, the flaw they use here is to claim a 'recent' (1974??!!) discovery proved scoffers wrong. Apparently scoffers proved that Samson was a myth because no Middle Eastern temples used columns. This 'recent' discovery of two Philistine temples with columns.

Now, where are the scoffers who claimed this? Would a historian have to rely on presumed architectural design to disbelieve a story about a man with magic super-strength in his hair? It is the same argument that claims that historians doubted the Noah story because it predated ship-building, but the discovery of ancient ships proved Noah right.

Anyhow, it is an argument of supreme misdirection. In the creationist realm I remember Hovind claiming that a scientific prediction of creationism is fossils buried in multiple layers (as a similar argument to above). The implication is that evolution would not predict this so the 'subsequent' discovery of such layers is a fatal flaw to the theory.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 57 of 136 (386180)
02-20-2007 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Trae
11-18-2006 6:52 AM


Re: The Evangelist Gallop
And a more familiar variation is to after being refuted on Z, start over from A all over again. Rinse, wash, repeat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Trae, posted 11-18-2006 6:52 AM Trae has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 58 of 136 (386192)
02-20-2007 8:03 AM


alternative explanation
"we do the same thing you do, we look at the same data and just come to an alternative explanation"

that ignores the part about actually explaining the evidence or that even addresses the evidence that contradicts the "alternative explanation"


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.

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 4367 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 59 of 136 (389153)
03-11-2007 10:19 AM


deleted

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.


  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 4367 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 60 of 136 (389156)
03-11-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
11-17-2006 11:35 AM


Hullo,

Home at last!

I've been looking for a forum like this for a week now. I spent several hours on this thread yesterday and I couldn't decide whether I should laugh or cry.

I have some experiences in this area and the posts on this thread reminded me of my own efforts - often in vain - facing similar difficulties.

I'd like to reply to the OP's post. One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning. This method is being used throughout the whole text of this article:

Belief in evolution—required for college admission? by Ken Ham, president, AiG–USA, February 5 , 2007

I give one example from the text:

"...The article continued:

One such textbook argues: 'Evolution is a concept that attempts to free man from God and his responsibility to his Creator.' Alters worries for the students who learn from such texts.

Yes, the secularists are worried. They are concerned because a minority of our young people — many of whom have shown they excel in their studies — are being taught that they are responsible to a Creator...and that evolution isn’t true..."

from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0205letter.asp

Andrea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 11-17-2006 11:35 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 03-11-2007 11:18 AM princesszin has responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019