YEC Tactics

[Danmark]

The argument proposed is that many well known Young Earth Creationists employ questionable tactics to argue their point of view.

[wiploc]

And he as much as confessed that his case was terrible and fraudulent. He said, and I'm doing this from memory, but I don't think I'm that far off, "There is no fact, real or imagined, that cannot be used to support the case for a young earth." That is the declaration of a huckster, not of an honest man.

I was curious about this, so I tried to find the actual quotation.

I need to retract.

Mine won't be the best retraction, because that is over at Brunching Shuttlecocks: http://brunching.com/retraction.html

I don't remember where I got the Gish quote about there being no fact real or imagined. So I Googled it. All I found was me repeating the same thing. Except I have him saying that there is no fact real or imagined that can't be used to support the argument that god exists. So, he was talking about theism, not about young earth creationism.

As to the rest of it, I watched him give a speech on TV. I can't even tell you the decade.

[Danmark]

And he as much as confessed that his case was terrible and fraudulent. He said, and I'm doing this from memory, but I don't think I'm that far off, "There is no fact, real or imagined, that cannot be used to support the case for a young earth." That is the declaration of a huckster, not of an honest man.

I was curious about this, so I tried to find the actual quotation.

I need to retract.

Mine won't be the best retraction, because that is over at Brunching Shuttlecocks: http://brunching.com/retraction.html

Hilarious! It reminds me of a Calvin Trillin article in the New Yorker at least 20 years ago, where each apology made the initial statement worse. Great stuff!

[H.sapiens]

Counter argument:

It is proposed that the tactics of disinformation, lying, and the dismissal of evidence contrary to it are de rigueur in the promotion of the absurd fable and religious belief system, masqueraded as legitimate science, that asserts that microbes morphed into men.

That is, as people have pointed out to you so often that we are all sick of reading it, a straw-man argument. No one has ever claimed that microbes morphed into men, though I, and I am sure many others would be happy to advocate the proposition that microbes and men share a common ancestor, who was, most likely, a microbe.

[Enoch2021]

There is no honest argument for YEC. YEC actually requires dishonesty to be supported. There is no honest way to support YEC.

I'm a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). You have never met or talked with me; yet, you blindly ad hominem (Fallacy) and Stereotype (Fallacy) before a word is ever exchanged. Doesn't sound too "Scientific" to me; sounds like a closed down Idealogy.

Questionable tactics are the only option available to them.

Why/How so....?

And as you have already posted many of their claims against evolution have long since been debunked.

Really? Can you show Life from Non-Life? Go ahead... ? Do you know what you believe sir? ...

From the Fathers of 20th Century evolution theory:

General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

Using the "Scientific Method", can you explain these..

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

yet they keep publishing them like as if they still have merit.

Well, until I see: Life from Non-Life, Stupid Atoms Writing Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes, and Matter/Energy Creating itself from Nothing, I'm gonna "Hold Fast" if you don't mind.

It has been thoroughly debunked by science.

Go ahead and show please....

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

Can you also "Validate"...Millions or Billions of Years:

"A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of PHENOMENA OBSERVED in the natural world." {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... hypothesis

It's a "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

Can you post the Independent Variable for each one of your "Past Non-Repeating Events" TESTS/Experiments used to Validate....?

It simply has no scientific credibility whatsoever.

I agree, evolution is neither "Scientific" or a "Theory" (SEE: Post, here):

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

[Danmark]

There is no honest argument for YEC. YEC actually requires dishonesty to be supported. There is no honest way to support YEC.

I'm a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). You have never met or talked with me; yet, you blindly ad hominem (Fallacy) and Stereotype (Fallacy) before a word is ever exchanged. Doesn't sound too "Scientific" to me; sounds like a closed down Idealogy. [sic]

When someone declares he's a YEC or antievolutionist, it's like saying "I believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
And BTW, the Earth is flat."

And yet you expect to be taken seriously?
Fuggetaboutit.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 24 by Enoch2021]

I'm a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). You have never met or talked with me; yet, you blindly ad hominem (Fallacy) and Stereotype (Fallacy) before a word is ever exchanged. Doesn't sound too "Scientific" to me; sounds like a closed down Idealogy.

Yes you are a young earth creationist you are not however young earth creationism both carry the acronym of YEC. When one is talking about an idea or concept that is not an ad hominem or stereotype. Also arguments and opinions are almost never scientific. Arguments are typically based off of logic reason and emotion.

So I find this entire quote completely an utterly unfounded. I do however welcome you to this site and I offer any YEC supporter to challenge me 1v1 on proving the existence of a young earth. Since you claim to have proofs for YEC I would gladly accept a head to head debate with you if you so choose.

Why/How so....?

One only needs to look at what the ideology actually says. An earth that is only 10,000 years old is impossible given the observable evidence. Hence any argument that the earth is 10,000 years or younger requires misleading or dishonest tactics to support it. I do not contend that you are implementing these tactics yourself , you could have been misled by misleading or dishonest information. You could full well believe in this information and repeat it thinking it is good information without being dishonest yourself.

Really? Can you show Life from Non-Life? Go ahead... ? Do you know what you believe sir? ...

From the Fathers of 20th Century evolution theory:

General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

Using the "Scientific Method", can you explain these..

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

I have seen this argument repeated many many many many times so I can only assume that you think this is a valid argument yet do not understand why it is dishonest

However, this is an example of a dishonest tactic that gets repeatedly brought about in Young Earth Creationism debates. Disproving evolution does not prove a young earth. In fact it has nothing to do with a young earth being created.

This particular dishonest tactic is known as a straw man argument as it creates an argument in which you can attack that is separate from the issue that you are supposedly defending.

Within this post there are also a variety of other fallacies in of themselves but that would be falling into the first straw man tactic to begin with. This is a complex tactic with multiple layers designed primarily to pull in your opponent to debating the other fallacies because they are glaring and obvious without actually addressing the topic of the validity of YEC.

Unless the topic is the validity of evolution this should not be brought up.

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

Does YEC use this? Last I checked it did not. I will await a response and debate that rather than evolution within this thread. You can also feel free to create a separate thread on evolution.

[rookiebatman]

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

Does YEC use this? Last I checked it did not. I will await a response and debate that rather than evolution within this thread. You can also feel free to create a separate thread on evolution.

I too would like to hear an explanation of how YEC handles each of these individual steps. My perception of YEC, as admitted on answersingenesis.org, is that they start from the conclusion and works backwards (which, in my understanding, is the exact opposite of the scientific method).

[Enoch2021]

There is no honest argument for YEC. YEC actually requires dishonesty to be supported. There is no honest way to support YEC.

I'm a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). You have never met or talked with me; yet, you blindly ad hominem (Fallacy) and Stereotype (Fallacy) before a word is ever exchanged. Doesn't sound too "Scientific" to me; sounds like a closed down Idealogy. [sic]


When someone declares he's a YEC or antievolutionist, it's like saying "I believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Non-Sequitur (Fallacy). Why would I believe in Aristotelian...Ptolemeic nonsense? Were they Young Earth Creationists?

And BTW, the Earth is flat.

What in the World?

And yet you expect to be taken seriously?

Ahhh Sir, by proxy of your beliefs....you can't tell the conceptual difference between a Sand Dune and a Sand Castle and Ascribe Authorship of Books to Ink Molecules.

regards

[Danmark]

There is no honest argument for YEC. YEC actually requires dishonesty to be supported. There is no honest way to support YEC.

I'm a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). You have never met or talked with me; yet, you blindly ad hominem (Fallacy) and Stereotype (Fallacy) before a word is ever exchanged. Doesn't sound too "Scientific" to me; sounds like a closed down Idealogy. [sic]


When someone declares he's a YEC or antievolutionist, it's like saying "I believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Non-Sequitur (Fallacy). Why would I believe in Aristotelian...Ptolemeic nonsense? Were they Young Earth Creationists?

And BTW, the Earth is flat.

What in the World?

And yet you expect to be taken seriously?

Ahhh Sir, by proxy of your beliefs....you can't tell the conceptual difference between a Sand Dune and a Sand Castle and Ascribe Authorship of Books to Ink Molecules.

regards

You broke a contiguous quote into two parts, totally misrepresenting what was written. You have been caught once again quote mining. What I wrote was:

When someone declares he's a YEC or antievolutionist, it's like saying "I believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
And BTW, the Earth is flat."

Thus you ascribed to me, the words I put in the mouth of our prototypical YEC science denier.

[rookiebatman]

Ahhh Sir, by proxy of your beliefs....you can't tell the conceptual difference between a Sand Dune and a Sand Castle and Ascribe Authorship of Books to Ink Molecules.

This after you just accused someone else of a Non Sequitor (Fallacy)? Oh, the irony!