Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 136 (364337)
11-17-2006 11:35 AM


I believe that it would be handy to present a list of the common Bait & Switch Tactics used by so many of the Biblical Creationist, ID and YEC websites and lecturers. With each tactic I would like to see an explanation presented of just why the tactic is a con.
The purpose of the thread is to give people a guide to help them identify when they are being conned.
I will start off with a VERY common tactic used related to dating.
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.
For example:
the 14C method is accurate out to about 50,000 (70,000 using newer ASM direct atom counting methods) years.
If you use 14C to date something that is really 20,000 years old you will get a reading of 20,000 years plus or minus some factor.
If you use 14C to date something that is really 200,000 years old you will get a reading of 50,000 years plus or minus some factor.
If you use 14C to date something that is really 2,000,000 years old you will get a reading of 50,000 years plus or minus some factor.
If you use 14C to date something that is really 20,000,000 years old you will get a reading of 50,000 years plus or minus some factor.
If you use 14C to date something that is really 200,000,000 years old you will get a reading of 50,000 years plus or minus some factor.
If you use 14C to date something that is really 2,000,000,000 years old you will get a reading of 50,000 years plus or minus some factor.
You cannot use a measuring tool to measure an item that is older than the maximum limits of that tool.
There is a second way that such sites misuse tools to fool the unwary. They use tools designed to measure very old things to show that some sample known to be young measures old.
Again, all that they are doing is misusing the tools to try to fool and con the unwary.
Let me give you an example.
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.
If you date something that is actually 200,000 years old using the potassium-argon method you will get a reading of about 200,000 years.
If you date something that is actually 20,000 years old using the potassium-argon method you will get a reading of about 100,000 years.
If you date something that is actually 2,000 years old using the potassium-argon method you will get a reading of about 100,000 years.
If you date something that is actually 200 years old using the potassium-argon method you will get a reading of about 100,000 years.
It is like having a stick that is only marked off in yards and being asked to measure a barleycorn.
These people have chosen the tool designed to give the answer they want as opposed to the honest answer.
The big problem is that those posting such examples CLAIM to be scientists. Scientists should know that misusing tools will give you poor results as well as a carpenter knows that using a saw to drive nails is a misuse of the tool.
I hope that other members will post examples of tactics being used as well as ways to identify them.
First choice for forum would be Education and Creation/Evolution and my second choice would be Is It Science?
Edited by Admin, : Change title from "A Guide to the Bait & Switch tactics of the Biblical Creationists".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Codegate, posted 11-17-2006 1:15 PM jar has not replied
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 11-17-2006 1:41 PM jar has not replied
 Message 15 by Trae, posted 11-18-2006 6:52 AM jar has not replied
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 11-19-2006 7:56 AM jar has not replied
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 12-07-2006 5:30 PM jar has not replied
 Message 36 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-31-2006 8:35 AM jar has not replied
 Message 49 by Larni, posted 01-21-2007 10:41 AM jar has not replied
 Message 60 by princesszin, posted 03-11-2007 10:50 AM jar has replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2007 12:12 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 136 (364418)
11-17-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
11-17-2006 6:00 PM


What is "the Gish Gallop" and ...
why is it significant?
What are the signs someone should look for to be aware of the Gish Gallop?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 11-17-2006 6:00 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 11-17-2006 7:17 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 136 (389161)
03-11-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by princesszin
03-11-2007 10:50 AM


Welcome to EvC and Yes, Ken Ham is a major Liar for Christ
Glad that you found us and look forward to learning from you.
The article you linked to is a great example of the conman tactics of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and it is filled with examples of Ken Ham's dishonesty. It begins with the totally false assumption that the issue is one of Christians vs Secularists, an issue that Ken knows full well is simply false.
He starts off with lies in the first paragraph and continues lying throughout the article, but that is just normal for the body of Christians that support Biblical Creationism.
What is so sad and pitiful is that that body, that vast group of Christians, are so ignorant, so brain washed, so gullible that they do not see the article for the absolute joke that it is and many actually follow up on the conman's plea in the last few paragraphs and send in money.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by princesszin, posted 03-11-2007 10:50 AM princesszin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by princesszin, posted 03-11-2007 11:36 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 136 (571763)
08-02-2010 9:26 AM


towards the topic?
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!

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by subbie, posted 08-02-2010 9:36 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 129 of 136 (571773)
08-02-2010 10:33 AM


down the rabbit hole.
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!

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2010 10:54 AM jar has not replied
 Message 132 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 11:22 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 133 of 136 (571794)
08-02-2010 12:16 PM


example of the rabbit hole tactic.
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.
Bolder-dash writes:
I think it would be very useful to have a thread to discuss many of the bogus, and dishonest practices evolutionists use when debating.
I propose that the thread deal with several specific issues:
1. They way they lie
2. The way that they use the aggressive tactics of claiming they have a monopoly on knowledge.
3. The way they badger and belittle, as a method for distracting from their lack of evidence.
4. Their overall ignorance about so many obvious notions.
5. Their attempts to subvert freedom of academic discussion.
In order to keep this narrow and focused, I want to make it ONLY about the evil tactics evolutionists use.
Call it a guide for sorting through their BS.
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!

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 1:11 PM jar 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