Strawman arguments are valid arguments.

RedAndy

Teapot agnostic
Dec 18, 2006
738
46
✟8,663.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
I think that because most of the YECs hide away on the Origins Theology board where the cold, harsh realities of modern science cannot reach them, many people on this board are willing to engage with any Creationist, no matter how Poe-tacular.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
I think that because most of the YECs hide away on the Origins Theology board where the cold, harsh realities of modern science cannot reach them, many people on this board are willing to engage with any Creationist, no matter how Poe-tacular.

Oh no, science reaches that board, too. The discussion there is dominated by TEists, since science crosses all boundaries. The only place where science is not allowed is the Creationists Only forums. Posts are deleted for giving correct scientific information on that board. That's where you'll find the Creationists.
 
Upvote 0

Morcova

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2006
7,493
523
48
✟10,470.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
The only place where science is not allowed is the Creationists Only forums. Posts are deleted for giving correct scientific information on that board. That's where you'll find the Creationists.

Are you serious?!:scratch::eek::doh:
 
Upvote 0

RobWW

searching
Aug 14, 2004
483
33
34
New York
✟8,508.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you serious?!:scratch::eek::doh:
It seems pretty obvious that science wouldn't be allowed in the Creationist only forum. All science points away from Creationism, so anything countering Creationism (science) appears as a banned type of debate (instead of honesty), thus scientific information is deleted.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
You laugh but by definition "that argument is a strawman argument" is a strawman argument. Strawman arguments can't not be valid if that is the case.

Its unrealistic to think that every possible angle on an opponent's theory will be covered by an argument.
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟11,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
You laugh but by definition "that argument is a strawman argument" is a strawman argument. Strawman arguments can't not be valid if that is the case.

Its unrealistic to think that every possible angle on an opponent's theory will be covered by an argument.
Before I start: submitted!
In any debate, every point raised by either side is by definition an argument. There are a specific type of arguments known as logical fallacies, which are invalid because for one reason or another they address something other than the arguments that the opponent raises or they make assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Strawmen are invalid because by definition they involve a mischaracterization of the opposing side to make one's point. For example, the statement "humans didn't evolve from monkeys" is a strawman because evolutionary science has never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys.
 
Upvote 0

Morcova

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2006
7,493
523
48
✟10,470.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
It seems pretty obvious that science wouldn't be allowed in the Creationist only forum. All science points away from Creationism, so anything countering Creationism (science) appears as a banned type of debate (instead of honesty), thus scientific information is deleted.

That's just sad.
 
Upvote 0

WilliamduBois

BenderBendingRodriguez
Mar 11, 2006
252
9
Desselgem, WVL, Belgium
Visit site
✟7,964.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You laugh but by definition "that argument is a strawman argument" is a strawman argument. Strawman arguments can't not be valid if that is the case.

Its unrealistic to think that every possible angle on an opponent's theory will be covered by an argument.

Is it just me that has the feeling he has no idea what a strawman argument is?
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Strawmen are invalid because by definition they involve a mischaracterization of the opposing side to make one's point.

There's a big difference between a mischaracterisation and a false characterisation. A mischaracterisation is one that simply exaggerates the truth and false characterisation is a lie. If evolution had never said our ancestors even looked like apes, I might agree that blaming evolution for that was mistaken. The fact is that evolution does paint our ancestors as ape-like, so its quite valid to say evolution claims that we descended from apes if your prepared to call the pictures of ape-like people apes. I am. Lucy is an ape.

Its all very well for people to shout "strawman this" and "strawman that" but half the time the characterizations are quite accurate. There's nothing wrong with characterization being used in an argument, that's why I call strawman arguments valid. If I say evolution seems to predict that all species will develop massive numbers of offspring at every possible opportunity and someone say "strawman", why should I care? I have characterized evolution as best I can and have subsequently made an interesting finding: so be it.

Strawmen are innocent until proven guilty.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RedAndy

Teapot agnostic
Dec 18, 2006
738
46
✟8,663.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
There's a big difference between a mischaracterisation and a false characterisation. A mischaracterisation is one that simply exaggerates the truth and false characterisation is a lie. If evolution had never said our ancestors even looked like apes, I might agree that blaming evolution for that was mistaken. The fact is that evolution does paint our ancestors as ape-like, so its quite valid to say evolution claims that we descended from apes if your prepared to call the pictures of ape-like people apes. I am.
That's quite different from saying "evolution says we descended from monkeys."

Lucy is an ape.
And so am I. And so are you, for that matter.

Its all very well for people to shout "strawman this" and "strawman that" but half the time the characterizations are quite accurate. There's nothing wrong with characterization being used in an argument, that's why I call strawman arguments valid. If I say evolution seems to predict that all species will develop massive numbers of offspring at every possible opportunity and someone say "strawman", why should I care? I have characterized evolution as best I can and have subsequently made an interesting finding: so be it.
Nobody has a problem with your "all species will develop massive numbers of offspring" idea; in fact, to some extent, it's true. The only thing is that natural selection weeds out most of the offspring so not many survive to the next generation.

What is a problem - and a straw man, however - is your idea that "people should be able to remember having evolved," "people should give birth to clones of their parents" and so on. Evolution does not say any of these things, so your characterisation is a straw man.

Strawmen are innocent until proven guilty.
As is so often said on these boards, proof is for mathematics (and alcohol). But we've been happily demonstrating your straw men to be "guilty" for quite some time now.
 
Upvote 0

RecentConvert

Regular Member
Apr 17, 2007
255
6
Waterloo, ON
✟7,937.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
There's a big difference between a mischaracterisation and a false characterisation. A mischaracterisation is one that simply exaggerates the truth and false characterisation is a lie. If evolution had never said our ancestors even looked like apes, I might agree that blaming evolution for that was mistaken. The fact is that evolution does paint our ancestors as ape-like, so its quite valid to say evolution claims that we descended from apes if your prepared to call the pictures of ape-like people apes. I am. Lucy is an ape.
There's little difference between a mischaracterization and a false characterization. You're mischaracterizing characterizations and building a strawman argument in the process.

Its all very well for people to shout "strawman this" and "strawman that" but half the time the characterizations are quite accurate. There's nothing wrong with characterization being used in an argument, that's why I call strawman arguments valid. If I say evolution seems to predict that all species will develop massive numbers of offspring at every possible opportunity and someone say "strawman", why should I care? I have characterized evolution as best I can and have subsequently made an interesting finding: so be it.
But the best you can do mischaracterizes evolution and builds a strawman argument in the process. If you feel that your characterizations are accurate then argue that and not that strawmen arguments are valid...

Strawmen are innocent until proven guilty.
It appears that you don't understand the etymology of the term if you think this sentence helps your case. Strawmen are the opponents that you are attacking instead of attacking your opponent. So, if strawmen are "innocent" until proven "guilty," why are you attacking it?
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Since Gott probably can't be bothered reading a wiki article, here's a strawman in short terms:

A strawman argument is any argument that attempts to refute another argument, by refuting a mischaracterization or "straw man" of that argument.
It is thus invalid because it doesn't defeat the argument (evolution) it defeats a different one (a fantasy theory of evolution in which we are predicted to give birth to clones)

For example, if I said that Creationism is a load of nonsense because sheep are woolly, that would be an (exaggerated) strawman, since creationism doesn't predict non-woolly sheep.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums