Fallacious pro-evolution arguments

[Nathan45]

If you’ve read my OP in its entirety, I think you’ll know that this problem involves more than just rudeness.

And if you read the post that you just quoted, you'd know i agree.

You're not going to agree with every atheist on this forum. Nor are they right in everything they say, you shouldn't expect them to be. And they're stubborn bastards. So is everyone else. This is old news.

The rudeness comes at the expense of the logical quality of the arguments being used, so the way it appears to creationists here is that the people here aren’t able to support evolution without relying on these sorts of fallacies. RichardT has already told me he feels this way.

and that's what this is all about, isn't it? Good luck with RichardT. Maybe you can be the "Good Cop", or you could just re-enforce the persecution complex.

...

and RichardT, in case you're reading this:

Go to your creationist only forum, and stay there. Be the admin, and Boot anyone who disagrees with you. Surround yourself entirely and without exception with creationists. They will spout arguments that you already know are false, don't correct them--inundate yourself in ignorance, because that's what happens when you lock the world out.

 

[Aggie]

You're not going to agree with every atheist on this forum. Nor are they right in everything they say, you shouldn't expect them to be. And they're stubborn bastards. So is everyone else. This is old news.

To the extent that this is currently the case, it’s only been “old news” for the amount of time that you’ve been a member. The forum first started getting this way around the time you joined. For someone like me who’s been a member for four years, though, this is still a relatively new trend.

and that's what this is all about, isn't it? Good luck with RichardT. Maybe you can be the "Good Cop", or you could just re-enforce the persecution complex.

...

and RichardT, in case you're reading this:

Go to your creationist only forum, and stay there. Be the admin, and Boot anyone who disagrees with you. Surround yourself entirely and without exception with creationists. They will spout arguments that you already know are false, don't correct them--inundate yourself in ignorance, because that's what happens when you lock the world out.

I’ve tried being the “good cop” with him for around a year, and that doesn’t seem to do any good. I talk to him on AIM sometimes, though, so what I’m probably going to do is invite him to either the OT section of CF, or one of the other forums where I post.

Since you seem relatively open-minded about this problem, I’d like to point out something else about Richard that I’ve mentioned before, but that you probably haven’t noticed: before you joined CF, he came closer to accepting evolution than any other creationist I’ve known online or offline, apart from those who went through this stage briefly on the way to becoming theistic evolutionists. Everyone here could tell when this was happening to him, and when he referred to himself a creationist during this time, other members would sometimes comment about how they doubted he’d be one for much longer. He made the same thing even clearer to me while we were discussing it privately.

I consider Richard to be the best illustration of how the conduct here nowadays runs contrary to this board’s purpose. He’s told me several times that what he wants here more than anything else is to have the flaws in his beliefs politely pointed out, and for most creationists who are willing to learn, this is enough for them to accept evolution eventually. But lately Richard gets replied to with mockery at least as often as with what would actually help change his mind, and the mockery just convinces him that the other creationists he talks to are right when they tell him that most supporters of evolution are unable to provide anything more than this.

 

[Nathan45]

I could be wrong but I think it's more likely he just craves the attention.

 

[Nathan45]

To the extent that this is currently the case, it’s only been “old news” for the amount of time that you’ve been a member. The forum first started getting this way around the time you joined. For someone like me who’s been a member for four years, though, this is still a relatively new trend.

I'm not sure, but didn't the moderation get somewhat more lax around then? I've heard horror stories about mods banning people left and right before i joined.


It might have more to do with the reduced moderation than anything else. Eitherway, people in general need to get some thicker skin.

 

[Aggie]

I could be wrong but I think it's more likely he just craves the attention.

No, it definitely isn’t that. Part of the way his uncertainty about this affected him early last year was that he left the forum for around a month. He and I were still discussing it on AIM, though, so most of what I know about how he felt during that time was from what he told me there.

If he was faking everything he told me on AIM about how he felt, he’d have to be one of the best actors I’ve ever known.

 

[Nathan45]

No, it definitely isn’t that. Part of the way his uncertainty about this affected him early last year was that he left the forum for around a month. He and I were still discussing it on AIM, though, so most of what I know about how he felt during that time was from what he told me there.

If he was faking everything he told me on AIM about how he felt, he’d have to be one of the best actors I’ve ever known.

erm, i'm not suggesting he's faking anything. I'm just suggesting he likes the attention.

 

[Aggie]

erm, i'm not suggesting he's faking anything. I'm just suggesting he likes the attention.

How would that have gone, then? If he wasn’t faking the fact that he was questioning whether creationism is true, how could wanting attention have caused that?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Just now stumbling late into the thread, but I honestly do my best to answer any serious question seriously and with respect.

However, when I spend some serious time putting together a well structures, polite, educational post, with information from reputable sources, that is intended to answer the person's question, I must admit, it gets pretty frustrating when the true colours come out, and the creationist refuses to acknowledge your evidence, plays silly semantic word games, or plain comes out with utter weapons grade balonium... one that happened to me the other day...

Creationist "Shouldn't there be transitional fossils if evolution is correct"

me "big post citing several examples of transitional forms and what experts say about them, with pictures"

creationist "Well what does Jesus say about them"

me "Jesus isn't really relevant to this"

Creationist "Jesus is ALWAYS relevant, if you don't believe that, I'm not listening to you anymore"

me " !? "

 

[Nathan45]

who cares, anyway, i'm not a mind reader. that's just the impression i get.

but even though i could be wrong, here's how I see people: Everyone has a mental idea of themselves in their head. And in any situation, they do whatever they think they'd do in the situation. Changing someone's sense of self is hard and usually doesn't survive a night's sleep anyway.

To be honest, sometimes I go to sleep thinking myself a christian, but I wake up in the morning and forget it all, because that's not who I am. Probably the primary reason is that i'm extremely uncomfortable in person around people who are openly religious and absolutely could not picture myself ever doing it. So no matter how much i like the philosophy or the theology i don't think it was meant to be.

... Anyways, my 2c: You don't hang around a creation/evolution forum for years and still be on the "fence" still. I don't think it actually works like that.

RichardT is clearly a fundamentalist. That's how he sees himself. He also tries to be openminded and intellectual, and i don't doubt that he is seriously contemplating these things in his head, he certainly is. But at the end of the day, he's still a fundamentalist, how could he be anything different? Is he now going to go to his parents/friends and start justifying a slimy non-literal interpretation of the bible? Wouldn't that feel totally unnatural, and completely out of character? And how would that even go down, "Hey, Guys, i'm an evolutionist now!!!1!11!" ... So as for any doubts, it goes to the back of the mind ... soon any doubts will be a vague memory, clubbed to oblivion by various pratts that he's forgotten the refutation for. And the next day it starts over again.

Or maybe i'm just projecting.

 

[Nathan45]

frustrating

This pretty much sums it up, and explains most of the insults that fly around this forum, IMO.

 

[Reanimation]

I consider Richard to be the best illustration of how the conduct here nowadays runs contrary to this board’s purpose. He’s told me several times that what he wants here more than anything else is to have the flaws in his beliefs politely pointed out, and for most creationists who are willing to learn, this is enough for them to accept evolution eventually. But lately Richard gets replied to with mockery at least as often as with what would actually help change his mind, and the mockery just convinces him that the other creationists he talks to are right when they tell him that most supporters of evolution are unable to provide anything more than this.

It should be the evidence that changes his mind, he's seen enough of it. He could go straight to the source and read papers himself, see the evidence for himself etc.

The way that some people conduct themselves on an online forum should have no effect on whether he accepts the evidence for a scientific theory or not.
The fact that he is saying that it is people's behaviour that holds him back from accepting the evidence should indicate that this isn't about the evidence at all.

 

[Aggie]

Just now stumbling late into the thread, but I honestly do my best to answer any serious question seriously and with respect.

However, when I spend some serious time putting together a well structures, polite, educational post, with information from reputable sources, that is intended to answer the person's question, I must admit, it gets pretty frustrating when the true colours come out, and the creationist refuses to acknowledge your evidence, plays silly semantic word games, or plain comes out with utter weapons grade balonium... one that happened to me the other day...

I know there are a lot of creationists here who react this way, and once they’ve shown that this is the only way they’re going to react, I don’t really expect people to be polite to them anymore. But Richard generally hasn’t been an example of this.

... Anyways, my 2c: You don't hang around a creation/evolution forum for years and still be on the "fence" still. I don't think it actually works like that.

RichardT is clearly a fundamentalist. That's how he sees himself. He also tries to be openminded and intellectual, and i don't doubt that he is seriously contemplating these things in his head, he certainly is. But at the end of the day, he's still a fundamentalist, how could he be anything different? Is he now going to go to his parents/friends and start justifying a slimy non-literal interpretation of the bible? Wouldn't that feel totally unnatural, and completely out of character? And how would that even go down, "Hey, Guys, i'm an evolutionist now!!!1!11!" ... So as for any doubts, it goes to the back of the mind ... soon any doubts will be a vague memory, clubbed to oblivion by various pratts that he's forgotten the refutation for. And the next day it starts over again.

I’m not sure Richard could still be considered on the “fence” at this point; all I’m saying is that he was around a year ago. He may have come down on the creationism side of it now, at least for the time being. However, I think it’s important to remember that this forum has quite a few members who joined it as YECs, and ended up accepting evolution as a result of their participation here. (This hasn’t happened anytime recently, though—the forum was a lot more productive for this in 2006 and earlier.)

I’ve seen how most of these people felt and acted when they were coming close to accepting evolution, and the one thing I know about Richard is that it was exactly the same in his case. The only difference about him is that in the end, it didn’t happen.

It should be the evidence that changes his mind, he's seen enough of it. He could go straight to the source and read papers himself, see the evidence for himself etc.

The way that some people conduct themselves on an online forum should have no effect on whether he accepts the evidence for a scientific theory or not.
The fact that he is saying that it is people's behaviour that holds him back from accepting the evidence should indicate that this isn't about the evidence at all.

It bothers me a little how I sometimes need to explain this multiple times here. I have one other thread where it was discussed, can you please read that first? The discussion about why Richard hasn’t changed his beliefs yet starts around the bottom of the first page. I also linked to a few of Richard’s threads from when he came close to changing his mind, which are worth reading also.

 

[Reanimation]

It bothers me a little how I sometimes need to explain this multiple times here. I have one other thread where it was discussed, can you please read that first? The discussion about why Richard hasn’t changed his beliefs yet starts around the bottom of the first page. I also linked to a few of Richard’s threads from when he came close to changing his mind, which are worth reading also.

I may not post in this section that much, but I do lurk a fair bit and I did so before I joined too- I'm not clueless.

The fact that he opts for ridiculous creationist explanations that have a multitude of problems and don't have a shred of backing evidence should indicate that he doesn't care about the evidence at all. If he did he wouldn't believe in them in the first place. The problems with them have been pointed out numerous times and yet he still believes them. The way people act should have no effect on this, it should be about the evidence.

 

[Aggie]

I may not post in this section that much, but I do lurk a fair bit and I did so before I joined too- I'm not clueless.

The fact that he opts for ridiculous creationist explanations that have a multitude of problems and don't have a shred of backing evidence should indicate that he doesn't care about the evidence at all. If he did he wouldn't believe in them in the first place. The problems with them have been pointed out numerous times and yet he still believes them. The way people act should have no effect on this, it should be about the evidence.

If what you’re referring to here is the creationist/geocentrist arguments he posts at this board, most of the time the reason he’s posting them isn’t because he’s convinced they’re true. It’s because after seeing creationists use these arguments, particularly in the creationist Yahoo group where he posts, he wants to see whether the members of this board can refute them adequately. I pointed this out in the thread I linked to.

When he’s doing this, can you see why it’s counter-productive to insult him for using these arguments instead of just refuting them? The professional creationists who tell him these things also tell him to expect people to make fun of him if and only if we aren’t able to refute their claims. He’s shown me what one of them told him about this: “We are to thank and praise the Lord for our persecutions in this world because of the Lord Jesus. So keep a stiff upper lip and remember that names are for calling when there's nothing left to say.”

 

[Reanimation]

If what you’re referring to here is the creationist/geocentrist arguments he posts at this board, most of the time the reason he’s posting them isn’t because he’s convinced they’re true. It’s because after seeing creationists use these arguments, particularly in the creationist Yahoo group where he posts, he wants to see whether the members of this board can refute them adequately. I pointed this out in the thread I linked to.

Then why would he say things like this?

Actually, I take the word of Creationists working in the appropriate field.

He takes their word for it, he doesn't care if it's wrong or not. His beliefs have been shown to be wrong plenty of times, yet he still holds them.

When he’s doing this, can you see why it’s counter-productive to insult him for using these arguments instead of just refuting them? The professional creationists who tell him these things also tell him to expect people to make fun of him if and only if we aren’t able to refute their claims. He’s shown me what one of them told him about this: “We are to thank and praise the Lord for our persecutions in this world because of the Lord Jesus. So keep a stiff upper lip and remember that names are for calling when there's nothing left to say.”

But his arguments do get refuted. He has been shown where he is wrong numerous times. I can understand why people start with the snarky comments, they're frustrated! He's still using the same pathetic creationist arguments after being here for two years! They have been shown to be incorrect time and time again.

You can't hang around a board like this for 2 years and claim to be on the fence, he's seen the evidence countless times.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Hey --- you think that's bad --- check out Posts 327, 328, and 329 here. And if that's not good enough, I've just recently had my life threatened. I've even had to have admin clean up my guestbook.

Try walking in my shoes for awhile and put up with what I have to put up with.

Persecution complex ftw.

 

[Aggie]

Then why would he say things like this?

Actually, I take the word of Creationists working in the appropriate field.

He takes their word for it, he doesn't care if it's wrong or not. His beliefs have been shown to be wrong plenty of times, yet he still holds them.

I didn’t say that he doesn’t believe what these people claim; if he didn’t he wouldn’t still be a creationist. What I’m saying is that this isn’t the reason he posts their arguments here.

I linked to this in the other thread, but here’s an example when he’s done the exact same thing in reverse: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationTalk/message/8471. He often posts arguments in favor of evolution from here at this creationist Yahoo group, in order to see whether the people there will be able to refute them.

But his arguments do get refuted. He has been shown where he is wrong numerous times. I can understand why people start with the snarky comments, they're frustrated! He's still using the same pathetic creationist arguments after being here for two years! They have been shown to be incorrect time and time again.

You can't hang around a board like this for 2 years and claim to be on the fence, he's seen the evidence countless times.

First of all, this particular thing is something he’s only been doing since spring of last year, so it’s been around eight months rather than two years. He didn’t show any sign of questioning his beliefs, or begin acting this way here as a result, until the CreationWiki administrator threatened to ban him from that site for removing obvious falsehoods from the articles there. And second, within the past eight months, have you actually seen him repeat the exact same argument after it’s already been refuted? What I usually see (and I’ve been paying pretty close attention to this) is that when he posts one of these creationist claims here and it gets refuted, he shows the refutations to the creationists in that Yahoo group, and then later on he posts what they said in effort to defend it as a new thread.

 

[Reanimation]

I didn’t say that he doesn’t believe what these people claim; if he didn’t he wouldn’t still be a creationist. What I’m saying is that this isn’t the reason he posts their arguments here.

But shouldn't the fact that these creationist arguments are shown to be incorrect time and time again set alarm bells ringing in his head?

And that wasn't what I was trying to say, I was pointing out that he said 'I take their word for it'.

I linked to this in the other thread, but here’s an example when he’s done the exact same thing in reverse: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationTalk/message/8471.

Good for him. Though if I was to look at that page without knowing the backstory from you, I would have thought that he was looking to sure up his beliefs, not to question them.

He often posts arguments in favor of evolution from here at this creationist Yahoo group, in order to see whether the people there will be able to refute them.

Arguments? You mean evidence? It's impossible to refute evidence, unless you lie or deny it that is.

First of all, this particular thing is something he’s only been doing since spring of last year, so it’s been around eight months rather than two years. He didn’t show any sign of questioning his beliefs, or begin acting this way here as a result, until the CreationWiki administrator threatened to ban him from that site for removing obvious falsehoods from the articles there.

He still would have seen plenty of evidence for evolution in his time here.

And second, within the past eight months, have you actually seen him repeat the exact same argument after it’s already been refuted?

No, I've seen him bring up old creationist arguments that have been refuted time and time again though.

What I usually see (and I’ve been paying pretty close attention to this) is that when he posts one of these creationist claims here and it gets refuted, he shows the refutations to the creationists in that Yahoo group, and then later on he posts what they said in effort to defend it as a new thread.

And those new arguments of his get refuted and so on and so forth, yet he's still a creationist. What does that tell you? That this isn't about the evidence at all.

 

[Aggie]

Reanimation, you don’t seem to be familiar with the way most creationist arguments actually work. They can’t refute actual evidence, but what they can do is distort it in an effort to explain away it in a manner that looks convincing. Have you ever looked through AiG’s articles? They generally don’t lie outright about things that can easily be used to prove them wrong, but what they do is use ambiguous terms, appeals to false authority, and other subtle logical flaws that take a lot of effort to identify for anyone who doesn’t have enough experience (far more than two years) in this debate. Professional creationists are generally experts at coming up with arguments that look convincing on the surface, and on the surface it looks like most of them are able to refute the arguments in favor of evolution from this forum just as easily as we can refute theirs.

Take a look at the replies to the Yahoo! thread I linked to. Can’t you see how to someone who isn’t all that knowledgeable in this area, it would appear as Richard’s arguments against creationism have adequately been addressed by the posters there?

I’ve read every thread that Richard has posted here for the past year, and I don’t remember ever seeing him repeating a creationist claim in exactly the same manner after the members here have previously refuted it. Can you show me an example of this? First show me where a certain creationist argument he posted was refuted by the members here, and then show me an example of him repeating the same argument at a later point, when he wasn’t just posting the argument creationists were using in order to defend it.

 

[Reanimation]

Reanimation, you don’t seem to be familiar with the way most creationist arguments actually work. They can’t refute actual evidence, but what they can do is distort it in an effort to explain away it in a manner that looks convincing. Have you ever looked through AiG’s articles? They generally don’t lie outright about things that can easily be used to prove them wrong, but what they do is use ambiguous terms, appeals to false authority, and other subtle logical flaws that take a lot of effort to identify for anyone who doesn’t have enough experience (far more than two years) in this debate. Professional creationists are generally experts at coming up with arguments that look convincing on the surface, and on the surface it looks like most of them are able to refute the arguments in favor of evolution from this forum just as easily as we can refute theirs.

Like I said, unless they lie or deny it.

Take a look at the replies to the Yahoo! thread I linked to. Can’t you see how to someone who isn’t all that knowledgeable in this area, it would appear as Richard’s arguments against creationism have adequately been addressed by the posters there?

Not really?
I don't see how he was arguing against creationism per se, just that white hole model. Creationist beliefs differ wildly, it's only one ridiculous model among many.

I’ve read every thread that Richard has posted here for the past year, and I don’t remember ever seeing him repeating a creationist claim in exactly the same manner after the members here have previously refuted it. Can you show me an example of this? First show me where a certain creationist argument he posted was refuted by the members here, and then show me an example of him repeating the same argument at a later point, when he wasn’t just posting the argument creationists were using in order to defend it.

That's not what I'm trying to say. I was pointing out that the arguments that he has used here have been refuted soundly in the past, by doing some research he'd be able to see that.