Bad Logic

[BananaSlug]

Though I doubt it will do squat, I decided to create a thread on the terrible logic that many creationists have. When trying to debate with an "atheistic evolution-accepter" bad logic will make your cause look even more foolish. Here are some examples.

Creationists love using the probability of life "arising from chance" as the biggest blow to evolution. We've covered enough of why abiogenesis is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution. The problem is that creationists do not consider the flip side of their argument. If probability is proof for evolution, then ERV sequencing is the best evidence we have (look up ERV's on youtube for a great video explaining the probabilities).

Disproving evolution does not prove creationism! Just because evolution is shown to be false, one would have to provide evidence for creation. The new theory would also have to explain why for over 200+ years we gathered all of this evidence that supported evolution.

False dilemmas never work (which is also part of the above).

Attacking frauds, hoaxes and imposters of the scientific establishment only shows how science exposes dishonest individuals and corrects information when it is shown to be wrong. This is not a weakness of science but a strength.

There are many other examples of creationist bad logic.

 

[Isambard]

I think Aron-Ra's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series coveres the topic best.
YouTube - 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

 

[Cabal]

This video also covers a lot of logical fallacies, definitely worth knowing about:

YouTube - Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

 

[BananaSlug]

The biggest thing is that if one of their ideas (in their mind) should falsify evolution, then the same logic would extend to their beliefs.

Evolution was used to support racism, therefore evolution isn't true=The Bible was used to support racism, therefore the Bible isn't true

Scientific interpretation always changes, therefore evolution cannot be true= Interpretation of the Bible always changes, therefore the Bible cannot be true.

And on and on...

 

[Gawron]

Don't you guys ever get tired of talking to yourselves about how much you hate "creationist"?

For people who are convinced that God doesn't exist, you spend an awful lot of time fixated on him.

 

[BananaSlug]

Don't you guys ever get tired of talking to yourselves about how much you hate "creationist"?

It's not that we hate them. We hate when they use bad logic. Do you ever get tired of talking to yourself about nothing relevant to the conversation?

For people who are convinced that God doesn't exist, you spend an awful lot of time fixated on him.

Since it seems that you don't have anything to contribute to the conversation, this thread is not about God not existing but why creationists' want to use bad logic to support their claims. If you use a certain logic in an attempt to disprove an idea the same logic can be applied to yours!

 

[Steezie]

I think Aron-Ra's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series coveres the topic best.

I've seen it. Its more an attack on religion with a few good points about Creationism interspersed. Thunderfoot's series "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists" was much better

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)

 

[Gawron]

So now we are playing dodgeball. OK.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you guys ever get tired of talking to yourselves about how much you hate "creationist"?

For people who are convinced that God doesn't exist, you spend an awful lot of time fixated on him.

 

[Steezie]

Don't you guys ever get tired of talking to yourselves about how much you hate "creationist"?

Many of us see Creationism as a destructive force. It is inherently anti-scientific (Not UN-scientific, ANTI-scientific), anti-intellectual, and destructive to the forces of inquiry that have brought us to where we are today.

Do you ever tire talking about how much you hate "atheist"?

For people who are convinced that God doesn't exist, you spend an awful lot of time fixated on him.

I never stated (And to my knowledge no one else has either in this thread) that God does not exist.

So now we are playing dodgeball. OK.

Dont automatically assume that because a thread didnt just drop everything and pay attention to you that you are being ignored.

 

[Gawron]

Did I claim I was being ignored? The fact that you replied proves I wasn't ignored. Your point is false.

As for "hating" atheist, I do not start threads with the sole intention of trying to attack a certain classified group of people pointing out how stupid I think they are. My point is simple:

"Though I doubt it will do squat"

BananaSlug should have stopped right there.

 

[Steezie]

Did I claim I was being ignored?

You made a rather overt implication to that effect with your comment

As for "hating" atheist, I do not start threads with the sole intention of trying to attack a certain classified group of people pointing out how stupid I think they are.

The poster pointed out positions that are well-trodden Creationist favorites and asked why Creationists believed in these as they are so obviously illogical. It seems a perfectly valid point to me and the fact that you negated to actually address the topic at hand and instead have chosen to attack the original poster and anyone you think agrees with that person tells me that you do not have anything concrete or insightful to add and are attempting to either muddy the waters so as to prohibit discussion or are trying to get the OP and other posters to back down by intellectual intimidation.

A word of advice, if you are a Creationist, I suggest NOT using intellectual intimidation; being intimidated thusly by someone who believes T-rex once was a vegetarian is somewhat like having a blind man criticizing the works of a painter.

 

[Gawron]

The topic at hand was pointless. But gee, I am really sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

 

[Steezie]

The topic at hand was pointless. But gee, I am really sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

If the topic at hand is pointless, then avoid the thread. Obviously not everyone shares your sentiment.

 

[ReverendDG]

Did I claim I was being ignored? The fact that you replied proves I wasn't ignored. Your point is false.

As for "hating" atheist, I do not start threads with the sole intention of trying to attack a certain classified group of people pointing out how stupid I think they are. My point is simple:

"Though I doubt it will do squat"

BananaSlug should have stopped right there.

because a lot of the time creationists DO ignore people who point out bad logic
so i can understand slugs lament
where did he say creatonists are stupid? or attack them as stupid? i don't see any of that.
i think your persecution complex is showing.

 

[Cabal]

Did I claim I was being ignored? The fact that you replied proves I wasn't ignored. Your point is false.

As for "hating" atheist, I do not start threads with the sole intention of trying to attack a certain classified group of people pointing out how stupid I think they are. My point is simple:

"Though I doubt it will do squat"

BananaSlug should have stopped right there.

It's for the lurkers. Or whatever the excuse is.

 

[BananaSlug]

So can a creationist answer the reasoning behind their logic and why they refuse to accept the same logic when applied to their beliefs (so it doesn't seem that I'm "hating" them)?

 

[MoonLancer]

Don't you guys ever get tired of talking to yourselves about how much you hate "creationist"?

insteadof presenting how creationism is science you write stuff like this. very telling indeed.

 

[Washington]

insteadof presenting how creationism is science you write stuff like this. very telling indeed.

It's just another creationist derailing tactic. "Get everyone off the topic by expending their enrgy in defending my silly charges." Solution?

[shadow=BLUE]IGNORE[/shadow]​

 

[Gawron]

Ignore all you want. It doesn't alter or even address my point concerning the ultimate goal of any thread targetted at creationist.

And moonlancer, what makes you think I am a creationist? If someone started an "atheist are idiots" thread, I would speak out against that as well.