YEC Tactics
Moderator: Moderators
-
Excubis
- Sage
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
- Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada
Post #171
[Replying to post 170 by Enoch2021]
Just because you claim baseless by your own opinion does not make it so this is delusional. Word play you have butchered the scientific method to fit your own view. No I did not say QM is WHY TRANSISTORS work. See word play. We developed transistors by QM mathematics. No I do not confuse technology with science yet sorry many technologies are in direct result of scientific findings. You use nothing but word play and no I did not comment as an authority I brought up is this topic of your incorrect understanding of observation according to the scientific method. You ask me a question that has no answer then in return use this as a means to substantiate your view. It is not if you state things as your belief I would have no issue yet you do not. Words of immutability for opinion, belief, and faith is word play. Think you even need to read your post of definition of straw man fallacy in has 5 indicators for a straw man fallacy not 1. Oh boy you can ignore all you want you are wrong utterly and completely about observation within the scientific method. Not my opinion the standardized acceptance of this methodology.I for anything else these are YOUR tactics. Over complication, quoting material as authority to suite your view until the material is shown by the research not to support your view, then you say doesn't matter what they believe yet you infer that there research support you belief, even thought Vetner specifically does not use his work to substantiate his beliefs only the science for science. Other tactics, claiming fallacy as one definition that has multiple indicators, by definition of fallacy in simple terms means deciet/false. You do not support your claims of fallacy this is intellectually weak very weak. If under an actual real time debate won by point procedure of logical point saying fallacy without evidence you would in all reality lose points for claims without substantiation.
Word play again ask a question in response yet there is no clear answer for. Your continual use of prima facie is also entirely incorrect. Word play based on a personal bias that is represented in your posts. I have given example yet you will not accept nor have at any point ever been conceded at all, Yet you question others ability to question their own world view. Ha. Everything you have posted is TACTIC based to attempt to circumvent logic and appear logical. I too had training as a christian to do this and everything you have said from genetics, to geology is same old that stems from old creationist ideals and hold no merit since based on conjecture of the unknowns in scientific fields. No more than that at all at least I can admit my disbelief is a belief you cannot.
Just because you claim baseless by your own opinion does not make it so this is delusional. Word play you have butchered the scientific method to fit your own view. No I did not say QM is WHY TRANSISTORS work. See word play. We developed transistors by QM mathematics. No I do not confuse technology with science yet sorry many technologies are in direct result of scientific findings. You use nothing but word play and no I did not comment as an authority I brought up is this topic of your incorrect understanding of observation according to the scientific method. You ask me a question that has no answer then in return use this as a means to substantiate your view. It is not if you state things as your belief I would have no issue yet you do not. Words of immutability for opinion, belief, and faith is word play. Think you even need to read your post of definition of straw man fallacy in has 5 indicators for a straw man fallacy not 1. Oh boy you can ignore all you want you are wrong utterly and completely about observation within the scientific method. Not my opinion the standardized acceptance of this methodology.I for anything else these are YOUR tactics. Over complication, quoting material as authority to suite your view until the material is shown by the research not to support your view, then you say doesn't matter what they believe yet you infer that there research support you belief, even thought Vetner specifically does not use his work to substantiate his beliefs only the science for science. Other tactics, claiming fallacy as one definition that has multiple indicators, by definition of fallacy in simple terms means deciet/false. You do not support your claims of fallacy this is intellectually weak very weak. If under an actual real time debate won by point procedure of logical point saying fallacy without evidence you would in all reality lose points for claims without substantiation.
Word play again ask a question in response yet there is no clear answer for. Your continual use of prima facie is also entirely incorrect. Word play based on a personal bias that is represented in your posts. I have given example yet you will not accept nor have at any point ever been conceded at all, Yet you question others ability to question their own world view. Ha. Everything you have posted is TACTIC based to attempt to circumvent logic and appear logical. I too had training as a christian to do this and everything you have said from genetics, to geology is same old that stems from old creationist ideals and hold no merit since based on conjecture of the unknowns in scientific fields. No more than that at all at least I can admit my disbelief is a belief you cannot.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein
-
Excubis
- Sage
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
- Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada
Post #172
[Replying to post 170 by Enoch2021]
This http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... llacy.html so what are you implying you do the very same thing my friend. Absolutely or are you not aware of this? Truly you do there is also burden of proof you continually use. There is fallacy for everything and every type of thinking. Since advent of debates these logical fallacies continue to grow and grow. Yet since logic is in some matter subjective based on ideologies, unless an individual can question one's own perspective only then can actual logical reasoning can occur. That is why it is called reasoning ie. what is the reason for the logic? We need to question to have reasoning even ourselves other wise objectiveness will be clouded by ego.
Yes I will say I do this like all people but attempt not too, and to be aware of this is the first step to actual logical reasoning.
This http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... llacy.html so what are you implying you do the very same thing my friend. Absolutely or are you not aware of this? Truly you do there is also burden of proof you continually use. There is fallacy for everything and every type of thinking. Since advent of debates these logical fallacies continue to grow and grow. Yet since logic is in some matter subjective based on ideologies, unless an individual can question one's own perspective only then can actual logical reasoning can occur. That is why it is called reasoning ie. what is the reason for the logic? We need to question to have reasoning even ourselves other wise objectiveness will be clouded by ego.
Yes I will say I do this like all people but attempt not too, and to be aware of this is the first step to actual logical reasoning.
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #173
Step 1: Discredit science (rightly or wrongly)
Step 2: Declare the earth young
Step 3: Prophet
Sounds legit
Step 2: Declare the earth young
Step 3: Prophet
Sounds legit
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
-
Excubis
- Sage
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
- Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada
Post #174
Enoch you are right in saying my definition of straw man was incorrect, good catch. Congrats on another tactic illicit a emotional response to adequately lower reasoning.
Straw man is the act of changing point but it is in result of a person not being able to support their own argument and other indicators on why a individual does this change of point.
Now asking a question on how something occurs is not a debatable point unless we are having a philosophical debate, then we can debate the relevance of a question. Not answering you question is not Straw Man fallacy there was no argumentative point taken to change.
Apologizes and good job on another YEC/Creationist TACTICS. You must love Ken Hamm.
Straw man is the act of changing point but it is in result of a person not being able to support their own argument and other indicators on why a individual does this change of point.
Now asking a question on how something occurs is not a debatable point unless we are having a philosophical debate, then we can debate the relevance of a question. Not answering you question is not Straw Man fallacy there was no argumentative point taken to change.
Apologizes and good job on another YEC/Creationist TACTICS. You must love Ken Hamm.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #175
[Replying to post 168 by Enoch2021]
Please don't alter what I write and claim you are quoting, unless you note you have changed the emphasis yourself. And there is no reason to shout in 18 pt type.
I'm willing to rewrite my own words in order that you may more clearly understand my meaning:
Indeed, the 'game' IS over. I have no problem with faith, which is pretending to know what you don't know. My issue is when pretending to know what you don't know claims it is a reliable epistemology and when science is twisted, perverted, and misrepresented to support wishful thinking based on pretending to know what you don't know.
When an honest appraisal of science fails to support the claims made when pretending to know what you don't know, one should either abandon the pretending to know what you don't know or abandon science. But to contort and misrepresent science to conform with the claims of pretending to know what you don't know does a disservice to both faith and science.
Please don't alter what I write and claim you are quoting, unless you note you have changed the emphasis yourself. And there is no reason to shout in 18 pt type.
I'm willing to rewrite my own words in order that you may more clearly understand my meaning:
Indeed, the 'game' IS over. I have no problem with faith, which is pretending to know what you don't know. My issue is when pretending to know what you don't know claims it is a reliable epistemology and when science is twisted, perverted, and misrepresented to support wishful thinking based on pretending to know what you don't know.
When an honest appraisal of science fails to support the claims made when pretending to know what you don't know, one should either abandon the pretending to know what you don't know or abandon science. But to contort and misrepresent science to conform with the claims of pretending to know what you don't know does a disservice to both faith and science.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Post #176
JoeyKnothead wrote: And replete with faulty conclusions based thereupon.
Moderator WarningUnconstructive one-liners are not allowed.
Please review our Rules.
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #177
I am curious about how and why the YEC theorists have moved their goal posts from 6000 years to 10,000 years. After all, if the Bible is the source of the correct date why deviate from Ussher and Lightfoot's chronology using the generations in the Bible to come up with October 23, 4004 BCE? At 9 am EST. 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
Has listed a number of YEC tactics. It will be interesting to point them out in future arguments:
"Quote mining:
This is the practice of isolating quotes from their original context in order to support a particular view. This often is used in conjunction with the argument from authority"i.e., an authoritative person said this, so it must be right, even if the quote is out of context. ....
Politicization:
Claiming modern science is politicized and biased because "most scientists are liberals or moderates." This is, of course, untrue, and even if it were true, it constitutes a fallacious appeal to motive.
Exaggerating the limits of a scientific theory:
Usually the phrase "only a theory" is passed about without any sense of irony, as creationists themselves sometimes attempt to pass creationism off as a "theory," albeit one unsupported by any evidence. This is also due to a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. Yet for them somehow the Bible is not "only a theory."
Pointing out science has been wrong before:
This is often combined with the above method of citing the fact that science is theory. Indeed, science has been wrong, but when it is found to be wrong it changes and becomes more accurate. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, by definition doesn't change, maintaining, at best, a constant distance from reality....
Exploiting the existence of non-uniformitarian views:
This can be wide reaching, from the speed of light changing over time to support the apparent age of the universe to bizarre hypotheses and suggestions that help support a global flood event.
Exploiting science fiction and popular culture:
As not all people are experts in all fields of science, a lot of people have to make do with popularised and slightly inaccurate versions of scientific theories....
Invoking divine intervention:
This technique solves many problems, like the starlight problem and explaining why incest was not an issue for Adam and Eve's offspring as well as for those aboard Noah's Ark.... Often this is abbreviated to "goddidit." ....YECs are known to resort to the related but more specific Flooddidit, Falldidit and Satandidit.
Referring to obsolete sources:
Science thrives on change. When discrediting evolutionary theories, creationists will often cite Charles Darwin's original The Origin of Species and point out issues which were poorly understood at the time. As all of science is a work in progress the specific details of the theory of evolution have changed much since Darwin's time....
Creationist "scientists" writing outside of their field:
For example, a physicist writing about DNA analysis or geologists commenting on biology....
Referring to "the flood" for everything
* * *
Mainstream scientists classify young Earth creationism as a pseudoscience, putting it on par with astrology. Indeed, at the Dover trial, Michael Behe, arguing that intelligent design should be allowable in public schools, admitted that his definition of science was broad enough to include astrology."
I believe we have witnessed all of these techniques on this forum.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
Has listed a number of YEC tactics. It will be interesting to point them out in future arguments:
"Quote mining:
This is the practice of isolating quotes from their original context in order to support a particular view. This often is used in conjunction with the argument from authority"i.e., an authoritative person said this, so it must be right, even if the quote is out of context. ....
Politicization:
Claiming modern science is politicized and biased because "most scientists are liberals or moderates." This is, of course, untrue, and even if it were true, it constitutes a fallacious appeal to motive.
Exaggerating the limits of a scientific theory:
Usually the phrase "only a theory" is passed about without any sense of irony, as creationists themselves sometimes attempt to pass creationism off as a "theory," albeit one unsupported by any evidence. This is also due to a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. Yet for them somehow the Bible is not "only a theory."
Pointing out science has been wrong before:
This is often combined with the above method of citing the fact that science is theory. Indeed, science has been wrong, but when it is found to be wrong it changes and becomes more accurate. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, by definition doesn't change, maintaining, at best, a constant distance from reality....
Exploiting the existence of non-uniformitarian views:
This can be wide reaching, from the speed of light changing over time to support the apparent age of the universe to bizarre hypotheses and suggestions that help support a global flood event.
Exploiting science fiction and popular culture:
As not all people are experts in all fields of science, a lot of people have to make do with popularised and slightly inaccurate versions of scientific theories....
Invoking divine intervention:
This technique solves many problems, like the starlight problem and explaining why incest was not an issue for Adam and Eve's offspring as well as for those aboard Noah's Ark.... Often this is abbreviated to "goddidit." ....YECs are known to resort to the related but more specific Flooddidit, Falldidit and Satandidit.
Referring to obsolete sources:
Science thrives on change. When discrediting evolutionary theories, creationists will often cite Charles Darwin's original The Origin of Species and point out issues which were poorly understood at the time. As all of science is a work in progress the specific details of the theory of evolution have changed much since Darwin's time....
Creationist "scientists" writing outside of their field:
For example, a physicist writing about DNA analysis or geologists commenting on biology....
Referring to "the flood" for everything
* * *
Mainstream scientists classify young Earth creationism as a pseudoscience, putting it on par with astrology. Indeed, at the Dover trial, Michael Behe, arguing that intelligent design should be allowable in public schools, admitted that his definition of science was broad enough to include astrology."
I believe we have witnessed all of these techniques on this forum.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Spurious Correlations
Post #178Confusing correlation with causation is not limited to any particular group. Just for fun, check out these spurious correlations. You can even generate your own:
http://www.tylervigen.com/
http://www.tylervigen.com/
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #179
More dishonesty by the Intelligent Design community. In today's episode we look at http://www.evolutionnews.org/science/li ... n_of_life/
This site purports to be a site devoted to the latest information on evolution. This is an outright dishonest misrepresentation. This is actually a Discovery Institute site. This is easy to determine by clicking on a 'button' on the site:
"What is Intelligent Design?" which yields:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
... a Discovery Institute site where they claim:
"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No."
and
"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. "
Both of these are false claims which were examined in the Dover case where the Court found the 'Christian' school board plaintiffs were dishonest and also found "Intelligent Design" was the same as creationism and was a religious, not a scientific theory.
The question is, why does a group that claims to be Christian, persist with such a misleading and downright dishonest effort? If they really support the 'truth' why make false claims to support their viewpoint?
This site purports to be a site devoted to the latest information on evolution. This is an outright dishonest misrepresentation. This is actually a Discovery Institute site. This is easy to determine by clicking on a 'button' on the site:
"What is Intelligent Design?" which yields:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
... a Discovery Institute site where they claim:
"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No."
and
"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. "
Both of these are false claims which were examined in the Dover case where the Court found the 'Christian' school board plaintiffs were dishonest and also found "Intelligent Design" was the same as creationism and was a religious, not a scientific theory.
The question is, why does a group that claims to be Christian, persist with such a misleading and downright dishonest effort? If they really support the 'truth' why make false claims to support their viewpoint?
Post #180
[Replying to post 179 by Danmark]
Don'cha know? Lying for Jesus is OK. Seriously ... I've pushed a few YECs to the wall, where they had nothing left, and that was their answer. Some (Mormons I've noticed especially) have it as part of their underlying religious theory.
Don'cha know? Lying for Jesus is OK. Seriously ... I've pushed a few YECs to the wall, where they had nothing left, and that was their answer. Some (Mormons I've noticed especially) have it as part of their underlying religious theory.
