This is off topic. Please, no replies. --Admin
Step 1. Paint a picture of your opponents argument with as much derogation and as little support as possible.
What a laugh, Percy. Unparalleled success in explaining. Sure, with imaginative scenarios that ignore everything that contradicts them.
Step 2. Mainstream scientists should always be referred to with distain as some kind of empty, fairy tale inventing, crackpots who not only are unable to see contradictory evidence, but are all either consciously or subconsciously involved in some kind secular indoctrination.
The "Depositional environments" idea doesn't account for the actual evidence as I just wrote Arkansas Banana Boy on the Reasons for Rejecting ToE thread, but it sticks despite its absolute absurdity precisely becasue it CANNOT be falsified as it is nothing but an imaginative scenario, however bad, and because so much is invested in this stuff by scientists.
Step 3. Create a philosophical argument to allow nonsense to enter the discussion. Scientific theories are just fairy tales for which many different alternate explanations can be made.
You can make the scenario "account" for the data because there is NO way to test it, to falsify it. Why isn't this obvious? It's all a big STORY wrapped around selected data, data which is just as well explained a number of other ways.
Step 4. Now is the time to shine! Describe your personal layman interpretation and associate it on an equal level with the rigorous study of thousands of the world’s greatest minds across the centuries.
Everything that supposedly proved descent for instance is JUST as well accounted for by DESIGN instead. JUST AS WELL.
Step 5. Make a completely inappropriate analogy. This is a good time to do it to cover up for the blatant insult you just delivered to world renowned professionals throughout the ages. In particular, equating man made mechanical things to life is effective against the evilutionists because they can be shown to be subtly the same despite the fact that mechanical things do not reproduce. Mousetrap and motorcycles should be avoided. Try to think of something original!
A fleet of cars of different makes, models, sizes, colors, engine power etc., but still all cars because of their BASIC DESIGN similarities, and not descended from one another.
Step 6. You must make the opposition idea seem obviously inferior due to inherent flaws. Do not be bothered trying to enumerate flaws just simply acknowledge they exist. Getting into a discussion about the DETAILS of a flaw is not recommended as you will be putting your opponent in a position to make a rational argument against you.
There's LOTS of evidence that doesn't fit the evo framework but it is made to fit by one sort of rationalization or another.
Step 7. Historical scientific progress is ALWAYS a weakness. Were they not smart enough to get it right the first time? Why are scientists always disagreeing on things and changing their "theories"? The Bible never changes and since the Origin of Species is the Bible to evilutionists, any attack upon the original framework of evolution is a valid blow to modern synthesis.
No transitionals? Oh but ALL are transitional. Well they don't LOOK like it, they look like separate groupings. Oh well but everything is a transitional and we'll just define our terms to say so and then you can't dispute it. No gradations? Oh but obviously there were great sudden leaps to explain it, punctuated equilibria.
Step 8. No matter what happens they always have no evidence for their position. It is irregardless how much time, if any, you have spent actually looking to see if they really do have evidence. Even if they have just presented you with evidence, simply wait until you think they have forgotten and state once again that they have no evidence. Attempts to further politely show you the evidence should always be met with accusations of no evidence.
Well obviously that was the case because there's the reptile down there and the bird up there and we KNOW they are related by descent because of the order of their appearance in the column so obviously things just kind of plateaued and then jumped. Yeah, hundreds of times. No evidence, but the thinnest possible plausibility.
Step 9. Whenever given the opportunity, always casually dismiss fields of inquiry that are too complicated or require too much effort to understand.
And genetics shows only similar design between orders and phyla too, just as well explained by design as by descent. JUST AS WELL. But descent is popular despite the absolute lack of proof. Sigh.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-01-2005 01:55 PM
This message has been edited by Admin, 08-01-2005 04:40 PM
Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)
™ Version 4.2
