A Guide to Creationist Tactics

In mathematics and science, chaos has a very specific meaning, which you don't get to decide. You know, like you didn't get to decide what "natural selection" means? Remember? 'Cos of you not being able to rewrite the vocabulary of science just to suit the damnfool mistakes you want to make about it.

No. Mainly because my arguments are not illiterate gibberish that you made up in your head.

Have you drawn the triangle yet ? Do you know what you will get if you carry on repeating? Any clue?
Want to see?

Lovely isn't it - a fractal called the Sierpinski triangle. You can zoom in as much as you like and the pattern remains - each triangle surrounded by 3 more. I remember when I programmed this on an old BBC micro and left it running overnight (my prof had given me the algorithm and told me I would be surprised).
So out of a random set of choces you get this beautiful order...see what I'm talking about yet???

Please provide your justification for this statement?

Folk, this is NOT a thread to debate much other than the tactics creationists use.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

True, but look how thoughtful Bolder-Dash has been to bring so many of them here for us to see.Whatta guy!

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Jar and Subbie made some accurate observations. The discussion *is* drifting from the topic, and recent discussion *has* provided a couple good examples of common creationist ways of approaching the debate. It would help the thread get back on topic if someone could characterize and classify them.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think much of the recent discussion in this thread fall into what I believe is one of the more successful tactics of the Creationists, that is leading the conversation down the rabbit hole.This is how it works.When a Creationist is presented an argument that totally refutes his position, he counters by pointing out a beautiful rabbit hole by making a comment that is so absurd and off topic that the evolutionist cannot resist being drawn down the hole, effectively allowing the creationist to take control of the path and direction of the conversation and leading it further and further from the original topic or refuted position.This allows the creationist to restate the refuted assertion at some future point as though it had never been refuted.This is a modified version of the Gish Gallop, instead of actually addressing the issue, simply change the subject, and since the creationist never concedes that the original position was refuted, (or any of their positions for that matter) they can continue the struggle.Since it is possible for someone to create as many totally silly positions as they want, the creationist has an unlimited supply of rabbit holes to attract the evolutionist.The failure though is laid squarely on the evolutionist. They follow along right down those rabbit holes. We do it to ourselves.It's an old and successful tactic, used by magicians, con men, snake oil salesmen to modern advertising; it's based on misdirection and palming the pea (which does require skill). But it works.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Another standard creationist tactic: they ignore evidence that doesn't comport with their religious beliefs.Don't like the evidence that refutes the belief in a young earth? Just ignore it.An elaboration of this technique is to deny the evidence, often using the flimsiest of reasons.Still another elaboration is to misrepresent the evidence.A more advanced technique in the same genre is to present phony evidence that purports to contradict the real evidence.All are methods designed to make the evidence that refutes their beliefs "go away." But it never does.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The creationist tactic we are seeing on EVC lately is to make wild assertions with no evidence at all. Our latest crop of creationists are doing this in all the threads they participate in. When there is a call for evidence, they then turn it around and demand evidence showing their assertions are not true. Our resident racists are also guilty of this.I am trying to just ignore these trolls but some of the things they say are so outlandish a response is called for.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

To put it another way, they use their minor errors to distract attention from their major errors.

The most recent Proposed New Topic is yet another great example of a Creationist Rabbit Hole.Note that while this topic was proposed as being neutral regarding any ethic consideration and was simply titled "A Guide to Creationist Tactics", the new PNT is titled "Guide to deceitful debate tactics of evolutionists". Note that it is NOT ethically neutral.In addition, compare the contents of the two original posts. This thread begins with a specific example detailing exactly the tactic used. It is supported by specific examples and the reasoning behind any factual criticism of the method.Compare that with the OP in the newest Proposed Topic referenced above. Note that in that OP there is no specifics, no examples, no reasoned support for his position, in fact nothing but unsupported assertion and innuendo.It is a continuation of the tactic outlined a few posts above, the attractive rabbit hole. It's attractive because each of the assertions mentioned are nothing more then smoke screens and we all know that Bolder-dash is both incapable of supporting them; we know that when he has been challenged recently on each of those points he has failed to support them and simply pointed to yet another rabbit hole.It will be interesting to see if Bolder-dash succeeds with this latest rabbit hole and how many other rabbit holes he points out as he gets challenged and yet again fails to support his assertions.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It's not a very deep rabbit hole, is it? Once one has pointed out that he's lying about everything there's not much else to say.A more effective form of rabbit hole is to be gormlessly wrong about some technical side-issue which the evolutionists understand perfectly well. The urge to elucidate science is pretty much why all the evolutionists are here in the first place, so it's a tempting bait.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Personally I saw some merit in letting one or two run and then analysing later, but I guess you are correct and it has strayed which is partly my fault.
OK, tactics I've met...
many of them are already mentioned - would it be possible to keep a list in a sticky or whatever similar mechanism is available? That way we can easily add/change a master list rather than having to summarise periodically?