Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9094 total)
6 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK, Theodoric (4 members, 2 visitors)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 901,287 Year: 12,399/6,534 Month: 1,892/1,988 Week: 13/460 Day: 13/60 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 136 (364526)
11-18-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RickJB
11-18-2006 8:08 AM


Re: Haeckel yet again!!
LOL
reminds me of the line "a fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject" ...?
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RickJB, posted 11-18-2006 8:08 AM RickJB has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 136 (368275)
12-07-2006 6:02 PM


another poor martyred christian ...
Here's another one:
Post on a science topic about how god belief explains it.
Then ascribe every attempt to evaluate the god explanation on the same basis as they do the science evaluations to an anger and hatred of your god, turn it into a poor martyred christian thread.
Message 166
it is, you're right. It's just that I wasn't getting my questions answered without being ridiculed for being closed minded or an idiot or something of that nature. It seems that my comments and questions are not wanted here. There are a lot of very bitter people that harbor very negative feelings about God. This is out of my control. Oh well. I'll just start another thread. I think taking the moral high ground and not ridiculing everyone that disagrees with me would be the right thing to do however...do you agree?
And don't forget to project your anger and bitterness onto the others while you are at it, doing exactly what you claim the others are doing to you, but insist that you are taking the moral high ground .... with the usual passive aggressive bit too.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 12-07-2006 7:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 136 (368298)
12-07-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
12-07-2006 7:15 PM


Re: another poor martyred christian ...
Tactics is good.
... but I think it's just an indication of how hard it is to change familiar ways of thinking.
okay chief.
He also, imh(ysa)o, needs to put down the gauntlet of imposing his presumed reactions of others -- if he is going to go to the high road he has to walk up the hill first, and leave the dirt of the low road behind.
(I put my answer here to keep it off the other thread - and so he can answer as he desires eh?)

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 12-07-2006 7:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 136 (373176)
12-31-2006 10:20 AM


Moving Goalposts and other tactics - Limbosis
Limbosis moving the goalposts: starting at Message 94
Now RAZD, what we can do to test a clear distinction between this and evolution is as follows:
We can try to make a single new animal species, on our own, through artificial selection.
When it was pointed out that this had in fact been done, AND that this "test" would not produce a positive result for his hypothesis we start to get the song and dance: Message 94
That's right. And, how do we know that it's not being mistaken as speciation?
Furthermore, do we know for a fact that whenever a new strain gets "far" enough away from its species of origin so as to become sexually isolated, that speciation has taken place?
Song and dance around the issue rather than addressing it. To which I replied;
Because it fits the definition of speciation as used by evolutionary biologists.
Again this goes to the argument in Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.
quote:
If you are addressing the validity of a science then you use the terms as defined in the science.
If you don't use the terms as defined in the science then you are not addressing the science.

All you need is a competing explanation to rule out that certainty.
Here, let me just make one up for you (as if it's difficult at all).
Just making up a hypothesis from thin air is NOT the same as making a scientific theory.
In conclusion I asked for another test, as the previous one was invalidated.
There was no answer.
Next we see Message 212
While it remains difficult to show how life began here, science itself suggests that it could not have happened by chance.
So, for our purposes, we can go straight back to the origin(s) of life on earth, and start there.
Even if speciation did occur, even if evolution was an actual process, nothing would have properly explained the initiation of life itself.
To which I replied Message 296
I'll take this as tacit recognition that the "speciation" test for your concept has been falsified per Message 1 and that there is no follow-up test proposed for validating the overall concept.
The sonic boom was the moving of goal posts at hypersonic speeds from speciation ("micro"evolution) all the way back to the origin of life (abiogenesis, not evolution), thus leaving evolution as the best overall explanation for the diversity of all life as we currently know it, ever since that seminal event of {first life} by whatever definition and process.
In the process this leaves the original concept as a fairly useless philosophical hypothesis that doesn't lead to any scientifically valid results.
The response was Message 298
RAZD, not once have I conceded the process of evolution.
To review, I had arbitrarily conceded to the issue of speciation. That wasn't because I agreed with that concept either, but because the question of speciation, itself, was not well-defined. This concession was done strategically and specifically to develop my main idea, with enough room to take it one or two steps further.
If you recall, I clearly stated that a lack of speciation wasn't necessary to do that.
Yes, there are conditions that exist, which would lend themselves in support for the theory of evolution. Big deal.
What this does do is leave his original concept totally worthless, even if it were NOT invalidated by the "test" results: what you are left with is "design in the gaps" - design can only be posited when we are ignorant of the process, rather than predict results that can be tested, the way evolution can be and has been tested.
This "concession" does not address the FACT that the point was refuted, but rather it just denies the reality so that Limbosis can cling to this concept in spite of the invalidation -- this kind of denial is another creationist ploy.
It is simply a theory.
Evolution is a tested scientific theory based on evidence.
Believe it or not, the phrase "a fabricator of life exists" is a theory.
This logical fallacy was already addressed in Message 188.
This is not a scientific theory, so saying they are both theories is equivocating on the definition of theory. This is a logical fallacy common to creationist argument: that any pie-in-the-sky concept is the equivalent of a scientific theory based on facts; thus it is a false comparison from the start.
The best this could be is a hypothesis because it is untested, but even that is generous as there is no test given to test the validity of the concept. To me the levels are:
  • Concept: your average pie-in-the-sky idea made up ad hoc and may or may not be based on evidence,
  • Hypothesis: a concept that is testable (even if the test has not been identified or tried), and
  • Scientific Theory: a concept based on evidence that has been tested and that has passed the test.
The "fabricator of life" is in reality just a philosophical concept, there is no evidence and no testable result.
Evolution is a scientific theory, based on evidence and it has already been tested.
They are not the same. They are not even close.
Now, if you want to talk about likelihoods, we can do that.
That would be changing the topic rather than addressing the issues that have been raised where the concept has been refuted or rendered intellectually insignificant.
What WOULD apply to my argument is the idea that many of the organs in our bodies can be treated as animals themselves.
Another goalpost moving. Organs do not reproduce themselves and as such do NOT fit the common definitions of life (see Definition of Life).
Now, kindly move my goal posts back, please.
I didn't move them. The only way the goalposts can be moved back is for Limbosis to go back and address the issues and not pretend that they have not been refuted, invalidated and rendered insignificant. He needs to stick to his topic and be prepared to admit when he is wrong.
Seeing as that thread is closed, that will be difficult without opening a new thread.
What we see in these posts is denial of contradictory evidence, rampant moving of goalposts, attempts to change the subject, and equivocation on definitions.
Not once is the issue of no longer having a testable concept addressed.
This post is NOT an answer to his post, but just points out the tactics used and why they are wrong.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 136 (377639)
01-17-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr Adequate
01-17-2007 6:53 PM


Entirely Imaginary Theory
... invent some imaginary evolutionists in your head, ascribe to them opinions you know perfectly well real people don't hold, ...
That goes so well with the imaginary theories ascribed to evolution as well - the "hopeful monster" theory of "macroevolution" in all it's variations: dogs giving birth to cats, cows sprouting wing stubs, fossils "caught" in the process of changing from one critter to an entirely different critter, and the like.
When you tell then what the theory really is they say that's just "micro"evolution and creationism already allows adaptation within kinds, but real evolution is something ELSE ....
You can run through 50 definitions that all support variations on the theme, and that isn't good enough because they have a creationist definition that is different ....

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2007 6:53 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 136 (377643)
01-17-2007 6:55 PM


Favorite Arguments
But not just of creationists ....
(1) Argument from Authority. Doesn't matter who said it or what they (really) said, it's true because {A} said it, and they're an authority on the topic.
(2) Argument from Incredulity. You just can't believe how many times this is used .
(3) Argument from Ignorance. Usually involves a PRATT or some variation of a claim that because the author doesn't know something that nobody can know it.
(4) Straw man -- the imaginary evolutionist or the imaginary evolution theory above (previous messages).
I think a large part of the reason so many arguments take this form is due to the pervasive insidious advertising use of these logical fallacies and the failure of school to teach about logic.
But I also think that fundamentalists are pre-disposed to accepting the argument from authority as being valid. Think about it eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 136 (379366)
01-23-2007 9:29 PM


The "Hidden" Assumptions ploy
Making conclusions based on assumptions that aren't stated, thus hiding them from being evaluated for logical content.
Example All Darwinists are Liars
herepton writes:
Message 1
Romans 1:25 KJV writes:
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
"Who changed the truth...." = appearance of design corresponds to invisible Designer.
"....into a lie...." = corresponds to mindless natural selection.
"....and worshipped and served the creature...." = corresponds to what Darwinists replace God with (animals are our maker). Notice how many evo avatars are of animals?
This verse was written in 58 AD and it fits the reality of Darwinism to a tee.
Ray
Premise 1: The bible is absolutely true
Premise 2: That herepton's interpretation is the only one possible
If either of these premises are false the conclusion is invalid.
Seeing as all the geological evidence points to an absence at any time for a global flood, and especially that the Grand Canyon could not have been formed by such a mechanism, means that anyone who represents the evidence to portray this mythical flood is twisting the truth into a lie eh?
Seeing as the creation of god is what is being studied the denial of that evidence would qualify as changing the truth into a lie.
Given the number of creatortionista sites that have been shown to contain false representations of the truth, that would be evidence of changing the truth into a lie. The Lucy Knee issue is a prime example.
The conclusion rests on two fallen legs and cannot stand.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 136 (379612)
01-24-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by but..what..of...lazarus?
01-24-2007 9:12 AM


Edited by RAZD, : duplicate post deleted

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by but..what..of...lazarus?, posted 01-24-2007 9:12 AM but..what..of...lazarus? has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 136 (379613)
01-24-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by but..what..of...lazarus?
01-24-2007 9:12 AM


"Of course, this is *exactly* what the creation model predicts"
This is like the AiG answer to speciation
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
quote:
In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information.
Fun page to read - if you enjoy equivocation.

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
and
Click on the red arrow reply button for general reply, the green arrow button for specific message reply (also sends email to poster). Check the PEEK button to see how coding was done (can also be done during reply using PEEK MODE at the top right of the "message you're replying to"

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by but..what..of...lazarus?, posted 01-24-2007 9:12 AM but..what..of...lazarus? has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 136 (382683)
02-05-2007 7:23 PM


Already Answered ... aka Rob ...
Usually about 100 or so posts into a thread, and usually after repeated requests to answer a specific question, this type of creationist will say:
"I've already answered that question, go back and read the thread"
... or words to that effect, but with no link to the actual post where the "answer" was given.
Examples: Message 242, Message 248 in Is Science a Religion?.
Usually you will find that all they've done is respond to the post that had the question, but left the question unanswered.
This is similar to the "Gish Gallop" in that to show the question has yet to be answered you have to go through each previous post ... again.
At best it is lazy. At worst it is dishonest, although it may be dishonest to oneself (ie - believing that an unrelated response is an answer).
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : examples added

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 136 (386192)
02-20-2007 8:03 AM


alternative explanation
"we do the same thing you do, we look at the same data and just come to an alternative explanation"
that ignores the part about actually explaining the evidence or that even addresses the evidence that contradicts the "alternative explanation"

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 136 (390041)
03-17-2007 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by princesszin
03-13-2007 7:43 PM


Re: quoting strategies
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

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 7:43 PM princesszin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by princesszin, posted 03-18-2007 9:30 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 136 (390098)
03-18-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by princesszin
03-18-2007 9:30 AM


cognitive dissonance and belief
Check out this lovely fourteen-year-old boy (with the nick Kabane52) who took the challenge, and answered his video.
Seems he hits all the salient points. Gives me faith () in the schools ... for those that want an education.
I'll try to get him post here, although I can't imagine that he would.
I'll bet he doesn't last. He'll make the claim that we are all liars and agents etc. He will likely maintain his delusions at all cost.
de·lu·sion -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
The biggest problem he will have -- and the reason he calls evolution a lie -- is that he has a problem with cognitive dissonance: what he believes is not supported by the evidence, therefore either what he believes is false or the evidence is a lie. If you do not (cannot) allow the concept of belief being false then the only conclusion you can reach is that the evidence is a lie, no matter how persuasive it is.
If you go back and look at his arguments with this perspective you will see that he ignores possibilities because of his fixed beliefs.
This is basic to fundamentalist creationist beliefs (whether christian, muslim, hindu or whatever) -- the absolutism and rejection of alternate possibilities.
As discussed in our emails I don't believe one could change his mind - I don't think it is possible to do that to absolutist fundamentalist creationists without dealing with the cognitive dissonance issues at a more complete level than is possible on the internet. Something more like a cult intervention program to de-program the propoganda and lies is needed first.
Absolutist fundamentalist creationism really goes beyond being a cult of ignorance (as jar says) to being one of lies and ignorance mixed with Authoritarianism.
It's 'kool-aid religion' ... with more than sugar, food-color and flavoring added.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by princesszin, posted 03-18-2007 9:30 AM princesszin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 4:06 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 73 by princesszin, posted 03-18-2007 4:08 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 136 (390128)
03-18-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by NosyNed
03-18-2007 5:21 PM


Re: weighing evidence
For a large portion of the creationists this is a very inaccurate description.
What you quoted was from JT's comments quoted by PZ. She has yet to use the quotebox or quote feature ... (see comments above).
I think it's time to do so - for the sake of clarity for other posters, and so confusion like this doesn't keep going..

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 136 (390132)
03-18-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by princesszin
03-18-2007 4:43 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
How do you think this cicle can be broken up? He's certainly interested in the topic, since he attacks it. That could be a good sign.
He would need to be willing to discuss it with the condition that he could be wrong. Without that it will be like talking to a "screaming weasel on a pogo stick" (per description from tusko, Message 1 on www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?).

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by princesszin, posted 03-18-2007 4:43 PM princesszin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022