My favorite far-right LJ asshole posted his latest hypocrisy and lie.

[Archae]

This far-right liar for Jesus on his own LJ showed just what a liar and hypocrite he is.
He gave his "answer" to a post I sent him.
(My post has a ">" next to it)

(My comments in parentheses)

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhjunior/

Oh, thou hast smited me with thine Superior Intellect.
In a response to another post I stated I was tired of going round robin with Evolutionists in this livejournal.

Some people don't quite get the message.

>Yes, it did go "round robin" here with you, Ralph.

>And you lost. You ended up looking like an ignorant fool, willing to believe in pseudo science so laughable as to be rediculous.

1)Ad hominem attack, ("you looked like an ignorant fool")
2)followed by an unsupported claim
3)Failure to accept the burden of proof.

>You aren't the only one who's been fooled by pseudo-science and fake history, Ralph.
Remember Eric Von Daniken, author of "Chariots of the Gods" and other books, saying it was aliens who created the Pyramids and such?
I used to read his books and believed his theories also.
At one time I used to also love books about "The Bermuda Triangle" also.
Since then however, I've seen how much absolute crap those are.

4) FALSE ANALOGY--- comparing the theory of special creation to unrelated theories and philosophies.

(The analogy is valid, crackpot theories fail due to lack of evidence. And creationism is a crackpot theory.)

>The point though is there is a system, created over many years by scientists called "The Scientific Method."
And it works. (If the rules are followed.)

1. Ask a question.
2. Formulate a theory.
3. Try to get evidence for the theory.
4. If no evidence is found, modify the theory or toss it.

6)INCORRECT PRESENTATION. The actual Scientific Method is

a)Observation and description of a phenomena.
b)Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena
c)Prediction of the existence of other phenomena by using the hypothesis
c)Experimentation--and this is important--to recreate the phenomena.

(I simplified it.)

Since the recreation of the origin of life is by definition less feasible than recreating the birth, life, and death of Abraham Lincoln, what is being used in both creationist and evolutionist models of scientific research is called the FORENSIC method. Which, crudely put, consists of uncovering the material evidence, and based on prior evidence determining what is the most likely cause for that evidence. Or as Holmes put it, once all other options have been eliminated, whatever is left, no matter how unlikely, must be true.

(Evolution doesn't truly address the ORIGIN of all life, it looks at what happened afterwards.)

Even if it's "kooky" as the theory of special creation.

(Special Creation is kooky, it has nothing to back it up.)

>Creationism however doesn't use the Scientific Method, they do it this way:
1. Form a supposition.
2. Use interpretations of ancient writings to try to support it.
3. Any evidence against the supposition becomes "satanic," or is called fake.
4. Attack real scientists, and use their own words out-of-context or simply fabricate quotes by those scientists.
5. Try to equate science with "immorality."

6) STRAW MAN ATTACK. And a weak one at that.

(Creationists do just this. Sticking your fingers in your ears and scremaing "IS NOT!" won't change that.)

7) ARGUMENT BY GENERALIZATION. "All creationists are bible waving kooks." This would come as interesting news ot the agnostics and atheists who have found serious systemic problems with the evolutionary theory.

(They have disputes with the minutae of the theory, NOT the basic theory.)

You have neither presented material evidence, or addressed the material evidence presented by the opposition. Exactly as I had claimed would the case, you simply resorted to calling any and all special creationists ignorant, unscientific kooks, and proclaimed your de facto victory over them.

(Just go to any library and look up credible books on SCIENCE. The evidence is there. Creationism has NOTHING, but an intepretation of a book written by people who were ignorant. Not stupid, ignorant.)

This is not a debate, it's a farce. Sorry, Jimmy the Retard Boy, I have no interest in participating anymore.

(Notice Ralph has to resort to juvenile insults and then whine how he's taking his ball and going home.)

(But Ralph shows his hypocrisy even farther in this post)

Time for another Logical Fallacy Post.
In which I shall be a lazy mother and post several of them, rather than going into depth on one.

Ad Hominem, or "attack on the person." Attempting to prove an argument is false by attacking the person presenting it, based on attributes unrelated to the argument.... e.g. "Micheal Moore is fat. why would you believe some dumb fatty fatty fat fat?" Is an ad hominem. However, "Micheal Moore has deliberately used innuendo and falsehood to present his argument" is not.

(Ralph, above: "Jimmy The Retard Boy.")

Straw Man, attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.
"The anti-abortionists want to put all women in burkhas!"
"Ashcroft wants to abolish the Bill of Rights!"
etc.

(Creationists: "The evolutionists are in a conspiracy against Jesus!")

Inflation of Conflict, Arguing that since two scholars debate a certain point, therefore their entire field of knowledge is in question.
e.g. ,"Christianity has so many divisions and denominations, the whole thing must be bunk." Or "One holocaust historian says 6 million Jews died, another says 8 million. That means the whole Holocaust is a fabrication!"

(Ralph: Scientists argue about parts of evlutionary theory, so it's ALL bunk and so by default "God dun it" is how the Earth's biological systems appeared by magic!)

Sheesh.

[Ruffhowse]

1. I applaud your efforts to debate this idiot, but like most wacko....

fundamentalists, they are the blind that WILL NOT see. No one can open the eyes of these fanatics, no matter how good the arguments.