Customer Discussions > Science forum

How to be a creationist


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 57 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 18, 2012 12:09:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012 9:33:22 AM PST
Sceptic says:
How to be a creationist"

Here is my list of ideal ways of arguing to enable anyone to remain a creationist or even become one.

Argue from personal incredulity.
Quote scientists out of context (quote-mining).
Don't actually research or read the sources you quote from.
Attempt to refute evolution by posting outdated material. n.b. Usually Discovery Institute derived!
Appeal to authority.
Argue from assertion.
Argue from ridicule.
Offer no constructive arguments, only denials.
Fail to answer any challenge to claims.
Insert miracles/supernatural where needed.
Establish special creation by faulting issues in evolution. (Use false dichotomy).
Use ad hominum commentary preferably by sneering at scientists.
Engage in frequent prevarication if challenged.
Exhibit cultivated ignorance of evolution and related sciences.
Repeatedly make claims which have been previously refuted.
Denigrate education in the evolutionary sciences as "brain-washing."
Dismiss expertise of scientists and Nobel prizewinners.
Claim evolution is only apparent if you believe in it and look at the world and select confirmatory evidence to that effect
Avoid accessing links to scientific theories and facts to scientific experts in their own fields of study.
Make out scientists disagree on the fundamentals of evolution or selection and cite disagreements on minutiae as proof of creationism.
Reverse the burden of proof
Claim evidential priority of faith over evidence and anecdote over systematic study
Make bold statements with scientific language or pseudoscientific jargon but show no reference or evidence for claims
Allow special pleading for your God (e.g. claim everything needs a cause except god??!).
Use add on hypothesis or claims if argument is shown to be on thin ice
Claim postmodern social constructionist philosophical views invalidate science or diminish it to no more value than any other opinion

If all else fails use denial.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 12:38:18 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 12:52:48 PM PST
Sceptic says:
That is really good. Use mistakes made by some people and claim that disproves all of Darwinism. Wonderful. Well done!!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 1:28:43 PM PST
Gwaithmir says:
Good list, Sceptic, but if Largo (EvoBlock) sees it he will report it as abuse.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 2:14:27 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 2:14:43 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 6:01:45 PM PST
Oh, the new mantra of "junk DNA disproved, disproves Darwinism".

Every part of that sentence is wrong. Junk DNA was not a "Darwinist" notion, nor a "Darwinist" prediction, and the ENCODE project has not shown that the notion is obsolete.

Get your science and history right before making such silly statements.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 6:04:41 PM PST
Deckard says:
andthehorseirodeinontoo? said:
"until you can demonstrate it happens in the lab
and i can verify it in my lab
it is just a wild claim with no substance'

Cool! When did you resurrect something dead in your lab?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 6:05:49 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 18, 2012 6:06:17 PM PST
"until you can demonstrate it happens in the lab
and i can verify it in my lab
it is just a wild claim with no substance "

When was the heliocentric solar system demonstrated and verified in the lab?

When was the somewhat round (versus flat) nature of the Earth demonstrated and verified in the lab? (Don't visit Australia, you might fall off!)

When was your (or anyone else's) God demonstrated and verified in the lab?

Meanwhile, many aspects of evolutionary theory have indeed been demonstrated and verified in the lab. That's why population geneticists have labs -- they do experiments that verify evolutionary predictions.

EDIT. Oh, well done Deckard!

Posted on Nov 18, 2012 6:12:11 PM PST
Christine M. Janis wrote:
"When was the heliocentric solar system demonstrated and verified in the lab?

When was the somewhat round (versus flat) nature of the Earth demonstrated and verified in the lab? (Don't visit Australia, you might fall off!)

When was your (or anyone else's) God demonstrated and verified in the lab?"
===================================

I specifically addressed that issue by:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdMsgID=Mx2AHCCGVF58I6U&cdMsgNo=1195&cdPage=48&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxF0UI35JWF50I#Mx2AHCCGVF58I6U

Deckard wrote:
"So if we can't do it in a lab, then it's not science? Astronomy isn't a science? Geology's not a science? Meterology's not a science?"
===============================================
Deckard,

How did you mix up between "scientific lab" and "21 Jump Street"?

I thought a scientific lab could be the outerspace, the core of the earth, or even the core of the sun.

A scientific lab is a place where our instruments could inspect, and communicate data to us. If you hold spectrograph in front of your house, receive and analyze the solar spectrum, the sun is in your lap.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 9:28:16 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 9:28:37 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 10:47:30 PM PST
Sceptic says:
Well done,just what I need to demonstrate blanket opposition:
Assert things without evidence...got that one.
You also reminded me that creationists require experiments that would take millions of years, must be performed in a lab !
I forgot that one.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 10:48:23 PM PST
Sceptic says:
What exactly is the abuse?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 10:49:54 PM PST
Sceptic says:
Yes! but it is a really good example of what creationists do, so I must thank them for such a fine example.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 10:53:52 PM PST
Sceptic says:
You just reminded me; creationists demand to see evidence of things that are impossible;transitional forms like a crocoduck are a good ploy.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 10:59:29 PM PST
Sceptic says:
Ah ! Another one; Thanks so much!!
Conflate evolution with abiogenesis.
Also if scientists do create new life claim that is only proof life needs a designer. Lastly demand scientists have to demonstrate spontaneous development of life from within a primordial soup or be able to travel back in time 3 billion years to witness events directly.
Good ones.
Well done for reminding me.
Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 11:04:00 PM PST
Sceptic says:
Aaaaah. Assert and or require absolute proof which is impossible in the real world.
Use a different burden of proof for evolution than is used for creationism.
Good,well done, keep going.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 5:04:52 AM PST
Gwaithmir says:
andthehorsewhogooglegoo said: "yo uneed (sic) to first create life
and then show how it evolves" (sic)

"not just make wild claims for it" (sic)

>There are several credible hypotheses for how the first life appeared on Earth. There are NO credible hypotheses for life arising from supernatural causes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 5:10:06 AM PST
Gwaithmir says:
andthehorsewhogobbledygoo said: "but you still have no proof of evolution" (sic)

>The theory of evolution is not merely a theory--it's a fact. Evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence. When you claim there is no proof for evolution, please be honest enough to say that there is no evidence for evolution that you will fairly examine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 6:30:20 AM PST
John McClain says:
Please correct your fallacious logic and then post again.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 6:30:54 AM PST
John McClain says:
Where do curses fall with regard to this advice of yours? The curses you believe in, specifically.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 7:52:36 AM PST
BAM: Got it. A couple other things...

1.

2.

3.

Use accurate data.

Posted on Nov 19, 2012 9:30:27 AM PST
Sceptic says:
How to be a creationist.
Make statements that demonstrate"there is no evidence for evolution that you will fairly examine".
Thanks for that one!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 9:35:37 AM PST
Sceptic says:
Actually to be a creationist you actually need inaccurate data or if that fails ,just make it up! Assert something.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  15
Total posts:  57
Initial post:  Nov 18, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 26, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions