Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 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 6202 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 replied

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

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 62 of 136 (389162)
03-11-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
03-11-2007 11:18 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC and Yes, Ken Ham is a major Liar for Christ
Hullo jar,
Thanks for replying.
The following quote from Prof. Kenneth R. Miller expresses how I feel about this subject:
"...Placing science and religion in opposition to each other, as a mandate to teach ID inevitably would, dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith.
Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision
, and to applaud the courageous parents and teachers of Dover who took a stand for educational and religious freedom in their community."
from: http://www.millerandlevine.com/dover/index.html
edit:
There's one more thing I'd like to add. Christian Creationists aren't the aim of my criticism - Creationists in general are.
Andrea
Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.
Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.
Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.
Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 03-11-2007 11:18 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2007 6:06 PM princesszin has replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 64 of 136 (389377)
03-13-2007 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Brad McFall
03-12-2007 6:06 PM


Re: quoting strategies
Brad McFall
You wrote "I would like to try to quote your colored quoted section here and then try to show how your use of it may be inacurrate while I will hopeful keep you convinced that I have not changed it's meaning."
I'm convinced that my use of it isn't inacurrate. I base this on the following grounds:
a) jar claimed the following:
"...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."
b) I reacted to his claim with my take on the subject (note that I claim that my take equals Miller's). Here:
The following quote from Prof. Kenneth R. Miller expresses how I feel about this subject:
"...Placing science and religion in opposition to each other, as a mandate to teach ID inevitably would, dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith.
Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision, and to applaud the courageous parents and teachers of Dover who took a stand for educational and religious freedom in their community."
from: http://www.millerandlevine.com/dover/index.html
c) That my claim equals Miller's is based on the following grounds. Miller actually describes his reasons why he thinks that letting ID being taught in schools would lead to opposing religion and sciense. And more importantly I agree with both his opinion and his reasoning he bases it on. That means my claim equals his:
Judge John E. Jones' decision in the Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design (ID) case (Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District) is a great victory for science, science education, and for freedom of religion.
Judge Jones clearly grasped the weight of scientific evidence behind evolution, and properly pointed out that it serves as the central organizing principle of the biological sciences. The trial was especially significant because it afforded the proponents of ID, including such prominent advocates as Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, the opportunity to present a scientific case for ID over several days of wide-open testimony. What took place, as the trial record makes clear, is that the pseudo-scientific claims of ID collapsed upon inspection. A series of expert witnesses for the parents who objected to the district's ID policy were able to demonstrate conclusively that ID is not science. They further showed that ID has no factual grounding, and that it represents a thinly-veiled attempt to insert a religious doctrine into schools under the guise of science.
As an expert witness for the plaintiffs, I was pleased to take the stand on the opening days of the trial in defense of the scientific integrity of evolution, and I am delighted with the verdict. Placing science and religion in opposition to each other, as a mandate to teach ID inevitably would, dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith. Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision, and to applaud the courageous parents and teachers of Dover who took a stand for educational and religious freedom in their community.
from: http://www.millerandlevine.com/dover/index.html
Andrea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2007 6:06 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Brad McFall, posted 03-13-2007 6:13 PM princesszin has replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 65 of 136 (389379)
03-13-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Brad McFall
03-12-2007 6:06 PM


Re: quoting strategies
Brad McFall
On a totally different subject...
You wrote "In one of your earlier posts you mentioned the following poor debating tactic.
quote:
One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning.
Obviously this is not a good thing to do no matter what the subject of the debate is. I would like to try to quote your colored quoted section here and then try to show how your use of it may be inacurrate while I will hopeful keep you convinced that I have not changed it's meaning."
I'm afraid that you've misunderstood me. I've never claimed that it was impossible to misuse a quotation even if one didn't change its meaning. What I claimed is the following:
"One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning."
Andrea
Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2007 6:06 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Brad McFall, posted 03-13-2007 5:57 PM princesszin has not replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 68 of 136 (389479)
03-13-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Brad McFall
03-13-2007 6:13 PM


Re: quoting strategies
Brad McFall
You wrote, "If your only point was to show in agreement with Miller that ID is not so good becuase it would 'inevitably' (sic!) put science and religion in opposition then I really do not have a point to make for you."
Inevitably is the correct spelling.
As to the rest of your post, there's no dishonesty whatsoever in claiming an agreement with the words of another person.
Andrea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Brad McFall, posted 03-13-2007 6:13 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2007 8:54 PM princesszin has replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 70 of 136 (390082)
03-18-2007 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
03-17-2007 8:54 PM


Re: quoting strategies
Hullo RAZD,
"welcome to the fray Andrea
Another standard creationist approach is to make a series of assertions with no substantiation, full of logical fallacies. This is the problem with your pet-peeve creationist's video (What's Wrong With These Creationist Statements? )
See if you can get him to post here -- he will find his assertions are not enough.
Enjoy.
ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
"
Thanks for your reply.
I'll try to get him post here, although I can't imagine that he would.
Check out this lovely fourteen-year-old boy (with the nick Kabane52) who took the challenge, and answered his video.
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDAZenorqJU
and here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAPi7gFEHHc
I know the quoting trick but I didn't have any substantional to say as of yet, and I wanted to save this technique for the time when I would.
Andrea
Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2007 8:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 12:44 PM princesszin has replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 73 of 136 (390104)
03-18-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
03-18-2007 12:44 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Hullo RAZD,
Thanks for your reply.
What I found frightening is that Kabane52 received many comments (several hundred) on his videos. There are quite a few among them such as 'shut up fatty' or something to that effect.
There's another youtuber with the nick Soldier in God's Army (SIGA) who puts up some very witty satires.
The young man with the nick VenomFangX commented the following on one of SIGA's videos, 'The unicorn was a dinosaur. End of story.'
To which SIGA answered, 'Wrong, brother. You're letting yourself be used as a tool of Satan himself!!! '
Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIkUKy5xY0
This incident shows me that he (Venom) really never thinks about anything.
Andrea
Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.
Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 12:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 9:02 PM princesszin has replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 74 of 136 (390108)
03-18-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jt
03-18-2007 4:06 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Hullo JT2,
"...I don’t think this is an accurate characterization of most fundamentalists.
The nature of the most types of fundamentalist philosophy makes it difficult to see alternatives as anything but insane; if someone is a fundamentalist, almost by necessity that person will have an extremely high level of confidence. But this does not mean that fundamentalists have been brainwashed. They have simply heard arguments, weighed evidence and concluded that one side is dramatically more convincing than the other.
As an aside, interactions on this discussion board (some even with you!) have converted at least several fundamentalist creationist posters to some variety of evolutionist (myself included), and have likely done the same to many lurkers. I think that most fundamentalists are sufficiently open-minded and rational that they could work through the cognitive dissonance and change their mind if they thought they were in error."
I would be very interested in your opinion.
One of the reasons I thought it would be difficult for him to change his mind was that he makes other videos about Islam with the words 'satan, evil' in their title (if you note similarly to the evolution videos).
How do you think this cycle can be broken up? He's certainly interested in the topic, since he attacks it. That could be a good sign.
What do you think?
Andrea
Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 4:06 PM jt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2007 5:21 PM princesszin has replied
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 8:16 PM princesszin has not replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 81 of 136 (390260)
03-19-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
03-18-2007 9:02 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Hullo RAZD,
Your quote was, "But high RWAs typically think they’re way, way better. They are the Holy Ones. They are the Chosen. They are the Righteous. They somehow got a three-for-one special on self-righteousness. And self-righteousness appears to release authoritarian aggression more than anything else.
Despite all the things in scriptures about loving others, forgiving others, leaving punishment to God, and so on, authoritarian followers feel empowered to isolate and segregate, to humiliate, to persecute, to beat, and to kill in the middle of the night, because in their heads they can almost hear the loudspeakers announcing, “Now batting for God’s team, his designated hitter, (their name).”"
What is RWA?
I always have to think about the film 'Frailty'. Not so much the film itself, more the way people reacted to it. The reactions differ from each other very much.
Andrea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 9:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2007 9:22 PM princesszin has replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 82 of 136 (390261)
03-19-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by NosyNed
03-18-2007 5:21 PM


Re: weighing evidence
Hullo Nosy,
You write, "They have been fed some simplistic junk and work very hard to not take any any new information. They repeat what they have been told without thinking it through.
We see a few of these pass through here every month. They are dogmatic, arrogant and not prepared to ask a question or listen to anything said.
On the occasion when one will engage in a give and take they often shy way as soon as they see they are being lead to a conclusion that they don't like.
A common dodge is the "it is just different interpretations of the evidence". However, when asked to supply the base evidence and give a detailed interpretation explaining it they duck and run. None of them have EVER actually worked through an "alternative" explanation that considers even a small part of the total evidence."
I agree completely (the quote wasn't from me).
As you've already told me on the forum (and summarised it here, too) this is the biggest problem with creationists.
I'm still trying to figure out how one could break this cycle (I'm sorry for spelling it wrong the first time, I corrected it).
There are so many different things that add up. It's a kind of ignorant child of an ignorant education politics, it seems to me.
Andrea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2007 5:21 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 83 of 136 (390262)
03-19-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
03-18-2007 7:18 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Hullo Ringo!
You wrote, "I don't think that's true at all. From what I've seen, creationists reject evolution a priori - without considering the evidence or even knowing what it is.
"Brainwashing" is a very apt term, since they absorb only the sanitized "evidence" offered by creationist sources. The brain is not only scrubbed clean of anything that could change their mind, but also scotch-guarded to prevent any new information from sticking.
It isn't just willful ignorance - it's militant ignorance."
Yes. Here's another example. There was a person who told me that everyone was atheist around him and he became a Christian later on. He believes that he was running away from Christianity and that's why he believed in atheism.
But now he knows that evolution is not true, because he likes it much better that we were created, than that something comes from nothing.
Andrea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 03-18-2007 7:18 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Bikerman, posted 08-01-2010 11:18 PM princesszin has not replied

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 6202 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 85 of 136 (390820)
03-22-2007 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
03-19-2007 9:22 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Hi RAZD,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm definitely A, if not RWA. And I'm conservative (I don't use it politically) in a lot aspects of life. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Andrea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2007 9:22 PM RAZD 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