YEC (Young Earth Creationist) tactics

[D Laurier]

I've noticed a tendency among YECs;
They start with an absurd claim.
Then when you demonstrate the absurdity of their claim, they tell that you believe something equaly absurd.
When you point out that you do not in fact believe the nonsense they attribute to you, they resort to ridicule and belittlement.
When you point out the immaturity of their actions, they respond with threats to sick their god on you.

Sometimes they declare that they were "once just like you", and then give a "testamonial" that shows how utterly un-like you they were.

They also tend to not learn from their own mistakes.

So what YEC tactics has everyone here experienced?

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

For a handy list of arguments favoured by YECs.

Argument from design, begging the question, circular reasoning, and ad hom. are, of course, the bread and butter of creationists.

[JohnE]

Each time you refute one of their arguments, they jump to another one. You can shoot down 10 "proofs" of a young earth, and they'll give you an 11th without missing a beat, like THAT's the one that'll convince you for sure.

Similarly, even if you dismantle an argument so hard even THEY admit it's wrong, they'll go on to use the exact same argument with the next person.

[Vene]

The Gish Gallop. Creationists love to throw out so many falsehoods you are unable to adequately address all of them. It is an excellent debate tactic (if dishonest), but horrible for finding out the truth.

[StallChaser]

They start with the conclusion (creationism) and try to force the data to fit that conclusion, no matter how ridiculous, poorly thought out, and self-contradictory.  Anything that differers from their conclusion is either flat-out denied, handwaved away (god's intervention) or they deny the physical law they've just contradicted.  If they're caught so deeply in their own bullshit that they can't escape, there's always "we don't understand everything because we're not God" or "God works in mysterious ways."

[rageaholic]

They think that if they can point out one flaw with evolution, it's automatically false and the Bible is automatically correct.  I remember VenomfangX doing this when he was on youtube. 

[D Laurier]

They think that if they can point out one flaw with evolution, it's automatically false and the Bible is automatically correct.  I remember VenomfangX doing this when he was on youtube.

Ah, I remember him.

Appearantly he's back to his old tricks

[Auri-El]

Yeah, that type of fundie thinks the world is black and white. If you can prove one thing wrong with the Bible, they think that invalidates the whole book. That leads to one, they refuse to admit any evidence against the Bible because IT MUST BE SATAN, and two, they think that the other side is the same way: one error invalidates the whole theory. Never mind that science doesn't work that way, and neither does the Bible.

Edited for mistake.

[TheL]

Yeah, that type of fundie thinks the world is black and white. If you can prove one thing wrong with the Bible, they think that invalidates the whole book. That leads to one, they refuse to admit any evidence against the Bible because IT MUST BE SATAN, and two, they think that the other side is the same way: one error invalidates the whole theory. Never mind that science doesn't work that way, and neither does the Bible.

Edited for mistake.

Slacktivist worded it very well here: "The all-or-nothing bill of goods she sold you when you were younger really is evil. It invites a crisis of its own making. It batters a child with a series of cruel non-sequiturs: If the earth is more than 6,000 years old, it says, then Jesus doesn't love you. If there weren't dinosaurs in Noah's flood, it says, then life is meaningless. If Isaiah was anything other than a carnival fortune-teller, whispering secrets to be decoded millennia later by the magic formula, then all hope is illusion."

[JohnE]

I once saw on YouTube a clip from The Atheist Experience where a caller was trying to prove creationism by disproving evolution. The host said, "For the sake of argument, let's say evolution has been disproven. It's a bunk theory. Now prove biblical creation." But the caller just when on pointing out "flaws" in evolution.

He didn't realize that you need to more than disprove evolution to prove biblical creation.

[Random Gal]

Creationists frequently bring up Galileo as an example of how the scientific establishment hates theories that don't agree with the orthodox view (like what evolutionists are doing to creationists now, hurp durp). When I've tried to argue that it was the Church that was attacking Galileo for disagreeing with their interpretation of Scripture, their response varies from "The Church was listening too much to bad science" to some variation on "Catholics aren't True Christians."

I've met some Christians who do admit that evolution is the best explanation for the evidence. However, many of these people phrase it as "At this point, evolution is the best explanation for the evidence." or "Well, science favors evolution now and it seems to make sense." It's like there's this assumption that eventually, scientists will discover that creationism is true.

Also, a common argument among creationists is "Since the Bible is the Word of God, it's automatically right about everything regardless of what the evidence says. Therefore, no matter how much sense evolution makes, it cannot be true if it contradicts the Bible." When I've discussed creationism with people, they take advantage of the fact that I'm a Christian and try to block out scientific evidence from the discussion and keep it entirely about what the Bible says on this basis.

[Sigmaleph]

The Gish Gallop. Creationists love to throw out so many falsehoods you are unable to adequately address all of them. It is an excellent debate tactic (if dishonest), but horrible for finding out the truth.

Funny example of that: Creationist joins forum and complains about evolution. I invite creationist to take it to the appropriate section and make his case. Creationist composes a long post of tired creationist clichés, including such classics as "The theory of evolution covers everything from star formation to abiogenesis to 'microevolution'" and "Evolution is synonymous with the materialistic worldview"

I do the typical point-by-point rebuttal of every one of his claims (I had a lot of free time), point out that one can discuss the Theory of Evolution in biology without talking about everything that could possibly have the word evolution appended to it, and suggest we narrow down the scope of the argument.

Creationist replies, says that he doesn't like the point-by-point style because it makes for long threads, then spews forth some more tired bullshit and refuses to narrow down the argument.

I counter his arguments yet again, this time in topically-organized section style, and remind him that if he dislikes long threads, then maybe we should just talk about biology and leave stellar formation and philosophy outside the thread.

Creationist points out another poster is still using point-by-point style, and uses that as an excuse not to reply while complaining again about long threads. Creationist vanishes and never shows up again.

[D Laurier]

The Gish Gallop. Creationists love to throw out so many falsehoods you are unable to adequately address all of them. It is an excellent debate tactic (if dishonest), but horrible for finding out the truth.

Funny example of that: Creationist joins forum and complains about evolution. I invite creationist to take it to the appropriate section and make his case. Creationist composes a long post of tired creationist clichés, including such classics as "The theory of evolution covers everything from star formation to abiogenesis to 'microevolution'" and "Evolution is synonymous with the materialistic worldview"

I do the typical point-by-point rebuttal of every one of his claims (I had a lot of free time), point out that one can discuss the Theory of Evolution in biology without talking about everything that could possibly have the word evolution appended to it, and suggest we narrow down the scope of the argument.

Creationist replies, says that he doesn't like the point-by-point style because it makes for long threads, then spews forth some more tired bullshit and refuses to narrow down the argument.

I counter his arguments yet again, this time in topically-organized section style, and remind him that if he dislikes long threads, then maybe we should just talk about biology and leave stellar formation and philosophy outside the thread.

Creationist points out another poster is still using point-by-point style, and uses that as an excuse not to reply while complaining again about long threads. Creationist vanishes and never shows up again.

Sounds about right.

[rookie]

A very long time ago, I just gave up trying to do anything with YECs. They are immune to logic and reason. I finally got tired of the squishy sound of my head hitting the same brick wall. Now, I find it much more satisfying to laugh at them. And not quietly behind their backs either. The more arguments I hear, the louder and longer the laughter gets.

[Lithp]

I was kind of hoping VenomFangX had an aneuryism.