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.

[Gladwin]

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

In medved's post, he said that my link on information theory didn't really critique the above argument. Since my ego isn't invested in the game of Cretigo, I will concede this point. Still, this does not imply that the argument above is correct. As I read it more closely, this is a form of the argument against the evolution of the eye. It argues that a half-formed eye is of no use at all, and is more likely to be selected against. Thus, there is no transitional path to a human eye, or an insect eye. The same argument is made against mammalian hearing.

So, this appears to be an argument against transitional forms. As such, it corresponds more closely to Argument M in the Cretigo list.

I apologize to everyone for having to re-mark your Cretigo cards ;)

[f.Christian]

The big lie...

Originally liberals were social conservatives who advocated growth and progess mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change.

Atheist secular materialists through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and call all technology evolution(science) to substantiate their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC!

Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives too!

What's left?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

A Portrait of "Junior" In His Own Words on the FreeRepublic Forum

Congratulations on your new fan club! I'm really jealous. Will there be website soon?

[DoctorMichael]

Bingo!

Great Post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!