Posted on 06/12/2002 3:00:11 PM PDT by Gladwin
|
Claims |
|
| A. God of the Gaps/Unsolved Mystery | Assumes that if science cannot PRESENTLY explain something, there is no natural explanation. |
| B. Personal Incredulity | Assumes that their inability to comprehend or understand how something could have occurred naturally is proof that it did not. |
| C. Post-It Note God/Morris Effect | Gives a supernatural deity credit for a natural event, or "well, god CUDDA done it that way !" "There is no observational fact imaginable that cannot, one way or |
| D. Scriptural Assault | Use of bible verses as 'evidence'. Usually either as threats, or bribes. Also includes such gems as : - "Jesus Loves You" - "I'll Pray For You" - "One day you will have to answer to Jesus Christ Himself, and then it won't be so funny when he throws your unrepentant soul into Hell !" - "One day, when you're burning in Hell, you'll remember this conversation, and that I warned you !" |
| E. Discredited 'evidences', Hoaxes and errors. | Otherwise known as PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Includes such things as the moon dust argument, the vapor canopy 'hypothesis', and the decaying c-factor hypothesis. These 'evidences' have been refuted (see Talk Origins for them), but creationists keep using them anyway. Things like Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and the Lady Hope Story fit also fit in here. Somehow the FACT that scientists were the ones that figured out these were mistakes or hoaxes is always missed by creationists. Science works by correcting its errors, so hoaxes and frauds usually don't last very long. |
| F. Out of Context Quotes | THE classic creationist technique. If, at any time, you see them claim that an 'evolutionist' says that evolution is false, you can be pretty certain the words have been carefully edited (like Darwin's 'Eye Quote', his 'Transitional forms should be everywhere' quote ... ). |
| G. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Arguments | The idea that evolution somehow violates this inviolable law of nature. In truth, it doesn't (in fact, life itself works in accordance to this law). Assumes that organization/complexity cannot form unless directed by some sort of program (false). |
| H. (Mis)Information Theory | A relatively recent argument, it claims things like 'gains of genetic information are impossible', or 'mutations have never been observed'. Both statements are, of course, false. |
| I. Absolutism/Burden of Proof | Assumes: 1) if you are not 100% certain about how something happened, then you don't have a clue about how it happened, or 2) anything not proven true is automatically false (or, anything not proven false is automatically true). |
| J. Denial = Refutation ex cathedra arguments Zeppelin Ego |
The first two assume that just because the creationist has stated something, it is automatically true without the requirement for supporting evidence. ('Your statement is false. Now that I have refuted you, you MUST accept that my ideas are correct !') Zeppelin Ego - when opponent's ego is huge, bloated, full of gas, and explodes into flame with the least provocation (tends to go along with #Q - see below). |
| K. Semantic Games | Opponent will expect you to conform to HIS definition of words, not their REAL, currently accepted definitions. Example : claims that evolution MUST be only single point mutations (as in the Modern Synthesis - 1942 to 1982). Also when evidence is redefined out of existence (ie, the invention of the 'dichotomy' between 'apparent' specified complexity vs 'real' specified complexity when it was demonstrated that a computer program using mutation/selection could produce a sentence exhibiting specified complexity. Sadly, without knowing the history of a process, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell the 'difference' between 'real' and 'apparent' specified complexity.) |
| L. Number Games | Use of carefully selected growth rates to 'show' that the entire Earth's population could've been generated by 4 couples a few thousand years ago. Also the One Sided Equation - most processes on Earth are in equilibrium (there are just as many factors increasing something as decreasing it). A One Sided Equation ignores one or the other side of the equation - seen in the Helium escape argument, or erosion/build up of sediment type of arguments for a young Earth. |
| M. Transitional Form Complaints | They either claim: 1) 'There ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS !!' (false), or 2)'Those fossils are the WRONG KIND OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS, AND SO AREN'T REAL TRANSITIONALS !!' The 'fossils are fully formed whatevers' type arguments are included in here as well. |
| N. Conspiracy Theories | Two major types : - "All scientists/evolutionists KNOW that evolution is false, but they hide/distort the evidence to get people away from God !" - "Every field of science kneels before the altar of Evolutionary Theory !" - geologists must check with evolutionists so they know how old to say the Earth is, for example. |
| O. Cartoon Theory of Evolution | Evolution is just the study and explanation of how living things change over time. The Cartoon Theory of Evolution includes Cosmogony (origin of the universe), Nucleosynthesis (origin of substances heavier than hydrogen), Abiogenesis (origin of life from organic compounds) - from the Chick Tract 'Big Daddy' most likely. |
| P. Argument from Weak/Faulty Analogy | Hearkens back to Paley's Watchmaker analogy (the "irreducibly complex systems" of Behe is the modern incarnation of this). Assumes that if two things have at least one thing in common, they have all things in common (designed objects are complex. Life is complex. Therefore, life is designed), and others of this ilk. |
| Q. Argument from Insult (direct and implied) Armchair Psychology |
Assumes that you can make someone accept your claims by calling them names (direct), or questioning their mental faculties ('you can't possibly believe that fish can turn into men !!' - implying you are stupid, for example. You would have to be to fall for that olde strawman argument). Armchair psychology is when they diagnose a mental condition for you - |
| R. Argument from Misplaced Authority | When you hear someone quoting an astrophysicist who states that 'evolution is too improbable', for instance (like the olde "Tornado thru a junkyard building a 747 !" argument). Expertise in ONE field does NOT grant expertise in ALL fields. |
| S. Argument from Improbability 'Evolution is ALL chance !!'. |
Usually seen in abiogenesis arguments, this makes the assumption that a modern protein had to be made in just one attempt. But, since natural selection selects more successful variants, it can make improbable combinations occur by working sequentially (several small improvements). |
| T. Martyr Syndrome Histrionics Emotional Appeals |
Creationist will claim they are being discriminated against, or called names ONLY because they are creationist/have faith (actually, they are being called names because they are using lame arguments, and excessive use of Zeppelin Ego). Schopenhauer's Maxim fits in here as well (the 'All great truths pass through three stages - they are ridiculed, then they are violently opposed, then they are accepted as obvious'). Also includes such rancid fare as "Hitler/Lenin/Mao and other nasty |
| U. Mobile Goalposts Backpedaling |
Occurs when the creationist asks for something, you give it to him, and then he claims that's NOT what he REALLY wanted, or that it REALLY doesn't qualify as evidence for your position (without clearly explaining why). |
| V. "No Eyewitnesses !!" - type argument | Claims that since no one was there to physically observe the event, we can't REALLY be sure it happened. Or, like using spectroscopy to determine what elements are in an interstellar gas cloud is invalid because no one has gone out there to physically retrieve a sample of the interstellar gas. |
| W. Misuse and Misunderstandings of the ToE 'Evolution is RACISM/ATHEISM/RELIGION !!" |
Oddly assumes that since evolution is based on assumptions, and religion is based on assumptions, that evolution is therefore a religion (ie, accepted as true WITHOUT evidence). Also assumes that one must give up God to accept the validity of evolution (false). Since the ToE is purely a biological theory that explains how life changes over time, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about morals, ethics, theology, philosophy, or cultural development, which is why claims like "the end product of the PHILOSOPHY of evolutionISM is the erosion of morality !!" belong in this category. |
| X. Ignorance of Science and its Methods | When someone demands that science PROVE something, or that 'evolution is NOT scientific', score one in #X. Science deals with EVIDENCE, not PROOF. Evolution is scientific because it does make testable and falsifiable predictions (like, 'what would we EXPECT to find in the fossil record if descent with modification were true ?') Also claims that fly in the face of known physics, chemistry, geology, etc go in here as well. |
| Y. Fallacy of the General Rule | 'If sedimentation can occur quickly under these conditions, it therefore can occur quickly in ALL conditions !!' is the prime example. This fallacy occurs when a rule is applied too broadly (The Mount St. Helen's example of a young earth and polystrate fossil formation are other standard creationist fares). |
| Z. Radiometric and Dating Whines | Common enough to warrant separation from 'Ignorance of Science and Its Methods'. Just baseless complaints/questions about the validity of known and verified dating methods. |
| 1. Muddled logic and other fallacies | The 'miscellaneous' category. Things like Special Pleading ('all things require a cause - EXCEPT GOD'), Circular Arguments (the statement you are trying to prove is one of the assumptions - 'God created things. Things exist. Therefore, God exists !), and Non Sequitor statements (have no relevance to the topic at hand - like bible verses discussing morality when the topic was natural selection). |
| 2. Mind Games and Rhetorical Tricks | Includes Projection (you keep changing all of his definitions of words BACK to what they really are, and he accuses you of redefining words to suit your argument), White Knight (rushing to the aid of a fellow creationist just because he/she is a creationist), going on incoherent rants, and 'just plain NUTS !!'.
|
If you go to the right side of your internet browser, there is a scroll up button. It is usually the arrow up button. Press this button until you get to the top of the page. If you have a three button mouse, you can also use the middle button to scroll up to the top of the page. There, you will find a chart of arguments, each one denoted by a letter. Underneath each of the paragraphs in your post, I put Argument A, or B, or C, etc.
Although, I really shouldn't bother trying to educate you on how to read tables, because I doubt you even read these articles. You just do information-free text dumps into every crevo-thread, regardless of what the thread is talking about.
It is amazing that you are tolerated on FR, but that says more about FR that you.
Trying to engage him would be like trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone you've just accused of being a child-molestor. That person is already so angry and upset at being wrongly accused that he is as likely to call you an idiot or a fat head, if not something that can't be printed here.
He won't accept that intellectual criticism may be ruthless, but it is not an attempt to destroy him personally.
I read your "argument H"; you obviously haven't. Like I say, if you're gonna be a BS artist, at least try to keep your BS coherent. You clearly haven't even tried.
In fact, the discussion you link to for H doesn't mention anything remotely like the argument I make regarding features devolving while others were evolving and you are basically lying if you're trying to claim that it does.
"We've got a whole lot of these folks on this forum..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#4
"Knowing gore3000, he'll take a look at your link and claim that evolutionists say coyotes are descended from whales. Do not underestimate the power of willful ignorance..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#68
You didn't even read the freakin' article, you dolt, or you wouldn't have made the inane comment about whales evolving from coyotes, or vice versa. Do you ever read any of the stuff we give you, or do you glance at the pretty pictures, decide that nothing's going to change your mind and then post inanities on these threads?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#143
My theory has always been he's nothing more than a rather primitive computer algorythm.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#152
You are the only person I've met who suffered from Tourette's Syndrome of the keyboard.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#384
Face it, gore3000, your brain (or programming) has been trained to force a cognitive disassociation between the pariticulars of evidence and the sum total of evidence. You can't see the forest for the trees. You'll pick at individual pieces of evidence given you, but fail to understand the overall picture painted by the evidence coming in from dozens of scientific disciplines. And, you show an inherent inability to actually learn anything
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#632
except by creationists who cannot see the forest for the trees and refuse to accept any evidence unless in the form of a living, breathing critter (and then they'd probably claim it was ginned up by geneticists in some secret laboratory to mislead good, God-fearing Christians in an effort to damn their souls to Hell).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#750
Gee, you get caught quote-mining red handed, and attempt to weedle out of it by bantering semantics. You haven't read any real science since that nice old guy down the street introduced you to Saturnism... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#978
Dear, dear, deluded g3k.... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1073
What must God think of you that you are reduced to bantering semantics, twisting words, willful ignorance, and outright lies to support Biblical creation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1080
I never said that, you liar and twister of words. The serpent in the Garden of Eden could take tips from you.... Remember, God said, "Thou shall not bear false witness" (which means lying). Of course, you probably think lying for God makes you a saint, don't you?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1082
Ahem, Mr. "I've got to lie for God,"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1088
I'm wondering if my asking gore3000 how he believed God felt about his lying for Him is what caused him to clam up. Medved, you claim God hates idiots, but not one of the commandments states "Thou shalt not be stupid." However, there is a "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Now that you know that your quotes are, at best, disengenuous, shouldn't you attempt to distance yourself from them, or is it okay to lie as long as it's "for the children?" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1209
That is why PatrickHenry keeps publishing the list - so that y'all do not keep spouting the same, discredited drivel. http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a68abe52d91.htm#147
I merely said that's what the Indians claim. And shortsighted politicians are more than willing to bend over and grab their ankles for these folks.
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a68abe52d91.htm#191
Ah... the "Static Cling Theory" of life, the universe and everything. Came to you one day while cleaning out the dryer lint trap, did it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/636491/posts?q=1&&page=101#140
I figured it had to be you. Can't keep a tinfoil hatter down.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634527/posts?q=1&&page=51#55
Your beliefs can't be proven scientifically so they must be forced on the populace through deception and the courtroom. Nice. In a few centuries America will have come to resemble the Islamic world in its backwardness and you can sit back in that special Hell God reserves for people who lie in His name, and gloat at your handiwork.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634066/posts?q=1&&page=151#164
Proof positive you have absolutely no clue about that which you speak. Your creationist brethren have given up this argument as factually incorrect, but you persist in your ignorance as if it were some sort of talisman keeping the real world at bay.
The Sun does not "reverse" entropy, you muggle....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=201#203
BTW, a mutation is simply a change in the genome. It happens all the time -- usually during the creation of the sex cells from transcription errors (there is a word for this, but I cannot remember it for the life of me). Sometimes it is caused by an external influence -- a stray particle of radiation might knock part of a gene out of kilter (the biggest source of such radiation, BTW, is the Sun), or environmental chemicals might play merry hell with one's genetic coding. It's quite common and happens all the time -- which you would know if you actually read something other than the Bible once in a while.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=301#346
Oh, I forgot, the scientific community is conspiring to keep you silent, so just sit in your basement and brood...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=351#356
A case could be made that you should alter your drinking...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=351#372
You are more incoherent than usual. Have they upped the dosage on your meds?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=551#556
Are you being dense, or what? A descendent species can coexist with its parent species. There is nothing precluding Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapien from occupying the planet at the same time. The fact that you cannot see this obvious situation indicates a lack of thought on your part.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts?q=1&&page=1370#1367
gore3000: God did it. I have special dispensation to lie for God. Besides, I'll ignore all your evidence so that I can complain you never give me any.
medved: God came from Saturn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts?q=1&&page=1408
Okay, Ted, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor. I really shouldn't read these threads while drinking coffee...
I am willing to open this point to the rest of the people on this thread. I interpreted your statement as saying that no gains could be made in evolution because of directionless mutations with one feature never following another in time for a fully formed animal to appear. This, to me, is a form of this argument: A relatively recent argument, it claims things like 'gains of genetic information are impossible', or 'mutations have never been observed'. Both statements are, of course, false.
I am willing to change my opinion if someone else has a better fit for your argument compared to the chart above.
Really?
Why don't you tell us then what you're really trying to say with statements like:
I have special dispensation to lie for God.or
Your beliefs can't be proven scientifically so they must be forced on the populace through deception and the courtroom. Nice. In a few centuries America will have come to resemble the Islamic world in its backwardness and you can sit back in that special Hell God reserves for people who lie in His name, and gloat at your handiwork.
You claiming that normal people make statements like that?
What, you can't figure it out for yourself? Try reading through your own stupid link and see if you can find anything about features devolving while others are evolving, and report back to us. Basically, the discussion you linked to was a sort of a lame attempt to link mathematical entropy theory to evolution arguments somehow or other. It's not even clear that the poster (on t.o) makes any sort of a point which is relevant to evolution at all, much less to the specific argument which I use about features devolving.
This whole thread is a smear on those who do not buy your atheist theory of evolution. One must wonder why the evolutionists have to insult if their theory is indeed science. Why can't they discuss their theory in scientific terms if it is supposedly so well verified that anyone who doubts it must be an idiot? There are a few reasons:
1. Evolutionists will never say what the theory of evolution is exactly. Seems to be a deep secret with them so that they can change the terms everytime they are proven wrong.
2. The theory of evolution is not a theory at all. It is just an atheist mindset which says - whatever the answer to a question is it cannot be God.
3. Even though evolution is suppossed to be sooooo true, no one can give a single example of one species that transformed itself into another.
4. The proof of a scientific theory is really in how it is applied and verified by subsequent scientific discoveries. All major discoveries in biology since Darwin have disproven evolution: mendelian genetics, DNA and the mapping of the human genome have all disproved evolution. There is not a single Nobel Prize winner for any discoveries supporting evolution.
5. Evolution is not based on science, but on rhetoric. That is why they need so many excuses to deny attacks upon it. One of the favorite excuses of evolutionists is that evolution is a process and thus cannot be observed. One of the slowest processes on earth, even slower supposedly than evolution is erosion. Yet this process can be easily seen by the earth running into streams and by the deposition of sediments down river.
6. Evolution has been based on fraud from the beginning. Phony drawings from Haeckel showed the development of humans and animals to be the same. Even now, decades after they were proven a fraud, evolutionists continue to display that fraud both in textbooks and the internet. Evolutionists are not at all interested in the truth, they are not scientists, they are atheists with an ax to grind.
Old fashioned preachers used to say "Hate the sin, love the sinner". Basically, I hate stupidity and am merely seeking to wean people away from it. The most natural way to do that is to expose stupidity for what it really is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.