Cretigo: Bingo game on the Crevo threads!

Cretigo web site ^ | Prof Weird

[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 another, be made to fit the creation model." - Henry Morris
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 - such as "You are OBVIOUSLY afraid of God, and want science to save you!", or "The ONLY reason you believe in evolution is you fear being held accountable for your actions !", or even "You have OBVIOUSLY closed your heart/mind off to THE TRUTH !!"
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 people 'believed in'/used evolution; therefore, evolution is evil !!", and "Racists use the theory of evolution to justify their actions; therefore, evolution is evil !!" where the main attempt is to discredit the ToE  with polemics, politics and emotions without having to demonstrate that it is wrong.
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 !!'. Use of the 'Gish Gallop' (and its electronic forum equivalent of flooding the message board so the latest "irrefutable demolition of evilution" post that got shredded and burned to ash drops off the bottom) is an example of a rhetorical trick - others fairly easy to recognize.

[VadeRetro]

Likewise if some of the evos see some of this stuff enough, some of the logic of it might start to sink in...

The antidote for "God Hates Idiots, Too . . ."

[VadeRetro]

. . . thus after many thousands of generations of being disfunctional . . .

No. Even when you try to nod toward anticipating and recapitulating the other guy's argument, you can't do it right. It takes me back to jennyp's point that any evo can cite all the creationist stuff perfectly, to the extent of even passing as a creationist. No creationist can pass as an evo, there's this psychological horror of the other side's position. Blasphemy, maybe.

It's like this. The population stays adapted. It changes over time because the environment changes and the population is staying adapted.

[Saturnalia]

TIME CUBE IS ABOVEGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RadioAstronomer]

Your CvE symphony post would be perfect here. :-)

[general_re]

Heh - this is sort of a pro forma affair on this thread here, isn't it? ;)

I'm not sure I can dig it up at the moment, but I'll take a look if I get some time. I've been offline for the last week - I missed the thrilling climax of the crevo noir thread :-( - and I'm just this morning cleaning out my email and trying to catch up to whatever I missed on FR.

I check out for a week, and I've got 120 emails in my inbox when I get back. You can run away from the world, but it keeps on turning anyway...

[medved]

TIME CUBE IS ABOVEGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't know about the time cube, but consider the tally wrt guys who have made claims like that, using the coldest, hardest system of reckoning feasible:

• God: Not provably dead or alive, evidence of works in past ages indisputable.
• Jesus Christ: Provably dead, credible eyewitness reports of being seen after he died, basic message regarding ethics and conduct sufficiently in harmony with the human psyche that his religion yet thrives after 2000 years.
• Chuck Darwin: Provably dead, BS theory demolished, not missed.
• Nietzsche: provably dead, not seen since he died, not missed.
• Karl Marx: Provably dead, philosophy universally despised and rejected after a century of bloodshed caused by it.
• Thomas Malthus: Dead, even his dog and his mama don't miss him.
• Vladimir Lenin: Provably dead, statue destroyed, body used for fertilizer.
• Joe Stalin: Died while leaches were being applied in 1953.
• Adolph Hitler: Provably dead, not seen since.
• Alfonse Capone: Died of syphilis after lengthy stay in federal prison. Not seen, not missed.
• Madelyn Murray O'Hare, other members of O'Hare family: missing, along with $629,500 of Atheism Inc.s money, presumed dead, nobody bothering to search other possibly than for the missing money...

Like I say, I don't really know about the timecube, but aside from that, the scorecard does not appear to favor your side...

[PatrickHenry]

TIME CUBE IS ABOVE GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This begs for a link. TIME CUBE .

[stanz]

Thank you for this exhaustive list of Junior's great comebacks. I will bookmark it and refer to it when I need a good laugh ( or some response to creationist drivel.)

[billbears]

bump for later

[Lurking Libertarian]

God created it all. He just did it in such a way as to not have to constantly tweak His creation.

Exactly.

[medved]

That little rundown was nowhere close to exhaustive, just what I was able to find in the ten minutes of time which I figured it rated. "Junior" in his own mind is waging some sort of a war against forces of darkness which are conspiring to return the world to some sort of a dark age.

[medved]

God created it all. He just did it in such a way as to not have to constantly tweak His creation.

Exactly.

Nonetheless, the creation used to tweak itself on occasion; macroevolution was not a part of the picture. Moreover, the tweaking process has since been shut down, and no longer exists in our present age.

[stanz]

Aw c'mon now. I think Junior's just a little impatient. But,his responses are trying to bring folks into the light not to any dark place.

[sayfer bullets]

Apparently these folks have a high level of ego-involvement in supporting their ideology.

[PatrickHenry]

Self-search ping.

[medved]

Apparently these folks have a high level of ego-involvement in supporting their ideology.

You'd have to. Think about it: how would YOU try to defend something as blindingly stupid as an ideological doctrine (evolutionism) which required an infinite sequence of zero-probability events in order to even get started, I mean, something immeasurably stupider than voodoo, rastifari, or believing in the great pumpkin?

The ONLY way I could think of to do it is precisely what we observe in the evolutionists, i.e. maximum arrogance.

I believe in the great pumpkin and I'm awfully damned proud of it and, buddy, if you DON'T believe in the great pumpkin, you are seriously messed up.

[tortoise]

Think about it: how would YOU try to defend something as blindingly stupid as an ideological doctrine (evolutionism) which required an infinite sequence of zero-probability events in order to even get started, I mean, something immeasurably stupider than voodoo, rastifari, or believing in the great pumpkin?

What kind of moron thinks that evolution requires an "infinite" sequence of "zero probability" events? Replace that with a finite sequence of non-zero probability events and at least you'll be somewhere vaguely in the realm of reality.

[sayfer bullets]

All one has to do is sit back....watch them talk amongst themselves....and it's quite obvious.

However, ...get into an in-depth discussion about the issues central to the debate (assuming you get that far) and you often get :

-"Evolution does not address that"
-swaps and associations such as "science" for "evolution (theory)" that are artfully switched in and out of assertions and arguments "as if" they are one-in-the-same.
-An incredible need of an alternative theory/belief/anything for comparison or deflection.
-"Six degrees to creation theory" game. (much like the Bacon game, but with a sneer. (see above)

It simply is not fair or correct to paint either side with a broad brush. Within each camp there are those who hold legitimately strong and honest opinions. However within each group there also exists the opposite.

I find it interesting the difference between what evo's discuss amongst themselves versus "creationists". If the creationist discusses evolutionists spiritual longevity, or any other aspect of their person, it's certainly not with delight or enjoyment as we see with the other side who derives pleasure out of ridicule.

[sayfer bullets]

That was quite interesting....lol.

[gore3000]

Nonetheless, the creation used to tweak itself on occasion; macroevolution was not a part of the picture. Moreover, the tweaking process has since been shut down, and no longer exists in our present age.

The evos never back up their claims. I have been asking them for months to give me a single example of macro-evolution, they act as if I was speaking Chinese. They know very well their theory is totally phony that's why they do not even try to back it up.