Fake Creationists?

In the time I've been here, a number of people have attempted to explain the actions of some of the creationists who appear the most immune to sense by recourse to a supposition that they're really pranksters posing as creationists to vex us. I seem to recall BooBooCruise, Wise, and Whatever as suspected of this perfidy, and I myself increasingly favor such an explanation for the behavior of Skeptick. "No one could possibly be so ignorant of how rational discourse is conducted!" one finds oneself thinking, which is why the theory is popular, I guess.Is this just an Argument from Personal Incredulity of our own, an effort to preserve optimism about the rational faculties of our fellow humans? Or is there some truth to this?Has anyone ever actually met somebody that whiled away the hours pretending to be a creationist on message boards? It doesn't seem like fun to me, so I have difficulty believing that somebody would opt to do it.

I strongly suspect that 14gipper is a "false creationist".I think I started a "Pseudo YEC" topic, somewhere in the past. I believe that one was mostly in reference to the current version of TrueCreation.Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-05-2004]

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

I think that it is often an argument from personal incredulity. I don't think I've ever encountered someone unambiguously known to be impersonating a creationst for the purpose of denigrating creationism or christianity.On talk.origins it is somewhat common for a known "evolutionaist" to post one or a few "out-there" messages under false pretenses (and a false name) to see how many incredulous and atagonistic replies can be garnered. The real sport is in including clever clues to the falsity of the message (e.g. author's name "Elle O. King"). In the days when Chris Colby was posting, he formally assigned "Loki points" (Loki being the Norse god of trickery) to the best of such efforts. Today, the assignment of Loki points is more informal.

I myself have witnessed the exposure of more than one individual doing just that over on CARM's EVO board.It does happen, I've seen it.BTW - Good word: "perfidy"

I suspect it is more of personal incredulity, at least in my case.I don't know what to think of Whatever. He/she is possibly the most polite AND oblivious *creationist* I've ever come across. Some of the things he/she states are so out there, that I have a hard time believing anyone could be so... wrong and not know it. However, I do lean towards Whatever being legit.Then there are posters such as simple. Even though he/she says some pretty ridiculous things, I have no problem thinking he/she is real.I think there must be people out there who pretend to be creationist just to stir the pot and perhaps get things going on a slow board, but I don't think they would be able to keep it up long. Nor would they get nasty and offensive, which is why I think simple is the real thing and am not sure about Whatever.

My first post on this forum was sort of a false creationist post. I didn't say I was a creationist, but I did say I was teaching a group of home schoolers on the subject of evolution and creation (which I was). I then asked questions in such a way as to seem a creationist. I even chose the name truthlover for the purpose of looking like a creationist (and now I'm stuck with it, but folks here say it's ok).I thought it would make evolutionists tear my points apart and I'd have good material to show my class. My mistake. I got thoroughly insulted, and no one addressed my questions.But it turned out to be a great board, anyway.

quote:

---

Then there are posters such as simple. Even though he/she says some pretty ridiculous things, I have no problem thinking he/she is real.

---

I am starting to wonder about "simple" as well. The evidence I have found:1. Both usernames are in lower case and are very ambiguous (whatever and simple).2. Just like "Loki", "simple" could be a very important clue (as in simple thinker).3. I have seen "simple" use etc.'s at the end of paragraphs on more than one occassion. Well, at least one post anyway from here, quote: "You have made your opinion known. I haven't heard you get down to the nitty gritty and deal with these rife assumptions though! You know, assuming decay rates, and present conditions, were the same. etc. etc." This is the weakest of the evidence, but who knows. Could have been a mild slip up between shifts in personality.Methinks that whatever and simple are the same person, a person who is posing as a creo. Just look at whatever's defense of the moon pool at the bottom of the ark in the Ark Re-enactment thread. Puhlease, vents that bring in enough pressure, without pumps, to create positive pressure in a boat to keep water from rushing through a hole in the bottom of a gigantic wooden ship. Utter nonsense. Who can really defend this?

http://EvC Forum: home school evolution questions is Truthlover's glorious entry into evcform.netI fine example of some of the evolution side jumping to unwarranted conclusions (knee jerk anti-creationism).Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Actually, I see that the worst and most dismissive almost immediately flows from the creationists. Zephan's reply is the worst in the thread, I think.

I'm not going to get back there right now, but I will make the suggestion that any further discussion of Truthover's first topic be done at that topic.Moose

Nobody can defend it, but I've run into well more than one who apparently believe it. One example is John McCoy, AKA "nameless" (the participants in alt.atheism agred to refer to him as that after his incredible number of blatant lies), a strong Wyatt and moon pool supporter. See Defense of Ron Wyatt and Did Evolutionists Lose on Noah's Ark Debate?, and never assume that anything written by McCoy is the truth.

I went back and reread some of that thread. Undoubtedly, Zephan's reply is the worst.That class, by the way, went really well. The whole village here is currently watching the DVD series "Evolution: Darwin's Dangerous Idea," and the kids from my class told me it's kind of boring, because they already were familiar with everything in it.