[How to spot an evo-babbler, emphasis original]
3) Claims you are quoting evolutionists out of context . An all time Talk.Origins classic! 90% probability!
2) Asks you to quote from the proper scientific literature (i.e only pro-evolution literature). This brings a solid 90% probability you have a genuine evo-babbler on your hands!
1) And the number one sure sign – cites articles from the Talk.Origins repository , where you will be fortunate to find 1 scholarly article out of every 50. If done just once, it still registers in at an impressive 80% accuracy! If they list more than one reference to Talk.Origins in the same post, you have a dead-ringer at 99.98% probability!
42 comments
This has to at least qualify as a Pot and Kettle Award nominee. The Bible Babblers insist that there is scientific data to back up their claims of young earth, creationism, et. al., but I have yet to see any of it that is not based on Genesis. Other than twisting and convoluting evidence for evolution to try to have it prove their fairy tale, they have nothing.
This is some of the most polished Mirror Award material I've ever seen -- as one would expect from a site called "Evolution Fairytale Forum." If that gets taken by some other post, perhaps this one could be given a "Rubber and Glue" Award, considering its obviously puerile "logic."
How to spot a Bible-babbler.solid 100.0% probability you have a genuine Bible-babbler on your hands.
1) And the number one sure sign - cites the Bible at every opportunity (relevance to current topic optional). You will be fortunate to find 1 scholarly comment in the bible out of every comment present. If done just once, it registers in at an impressive 99.9% accuracy! If they list more than one bible verse in the same post, you have a dead-ringer at 246.72354%!!!?!?!!!!
Once again, swapping words produces interesting results.
Haha, I got banned from that forum for pointing out to the mod that his rules were tyrannical and not condusive to honest debate. The rules basically boil down to, "Any time someone calls a Creationist on their shit, they will be labelled an 'evo-babbler' and banned from the forum."
And remember folks, "If it quotes scripture, it's a Fundy. If it craps in its paw and flings poo at you, it's a monkey." Not a lot of difference, so look sharp - and they both have a tendency to bite.
I think the funniest part is number 5.
5) Fond of strawman arguments. This is actually prevalent among evolutionists who do not worship at the Talk.Origins alter, so you only have a 50% chance he/she is a genuine evo-babbler. Look for other symptoms to confirm the evo-babbler diagnosis. However, if the evo-babbler erected the strawman by putting words into your mouth, the disease has metastasized to stage 3 and you have an 85% probability the individual has been infected with evo-babble-itis!
3) So, even if you are quoting them out of context, you can say he's wrong.
So, to sum up: "evo-babblers" don't like quote mining, do like scientific evidence, and cite articles from a reasonable source? How terribly reasonable!
*** HOW TO SPOT AN EVO-BABBLER ***
Just as soon as he shows some actual peer-reviewed scientific literature giving a whit of credence to his mythic nonsense, I'll gladly broadcast it far and wide.
Ladies, gentlemen, lions, and lionesses, this Committee has been called in to review a rather concentrated example of fundie nonsense. At this time, I would like to ask all members of the Committee and the audience to shut off all irony meters and bullshit meters, and to remove all black kettles from the room. Mirrors should also be removed to avoid confusion of the fundie.
Machine translations are imperfect. Single-tired-person translations may be equally flawed. Fundiebabble-to-English translator is activated, and will provide translations when needed.
I now call attention to the fundiness before us. At this point, people with a low tolerance for stupidity should leave the room.
List of "10 ways to spot an "evo-babbler," by Frank Williams continues below.
10) Calls you a liar. Too common an occurrence to easily attribute to a Talk.Origins evo-babbler, so there is only a 40% chance you have an evo-babbler on your hands. You must look for other symptoms.
Translation: "Evo-babblers" will challenge creationists' lies, rather than blindly accept them or let them slide.
9) Has an insatiable appetite for red herrings. When you end up replying to two or more unrelated topics within your first response, there is an 80% probability you have an authentic evo-babbler on your hands!
Translation: Creationists have an insatiable appetite for red herrings. One of their favorites is to accuse their opponents of using red herrings to distract people from the fact that the creationists themselves are distracting.
**Alternate Translation: Creationists generally don't know what evolution is, and must come up with straw men as a substitute. When their opponents point this out and tell them what evolution is, they claim this to be a "red herring."
8) Quibbles over trivial things (equivocation), such as a word in your post. This is good sign you have a genuine evo-babbler in your mist, ringing in at a 85% probability!
Translation: "Evo-babblers," like any good scientists, try and define words as precisely as possible, which prevents misunderstanding, and also prevents creationists from using vague weasel words to create the false impression of evidence.
7) Reasons in a circle. The evo-babbler Mike Hager provided numerous examples during his perch in this guestbook, including this classic “Since the deity is unreal, it is clear that it could have created nothing.” Circular reasoning is common among evolutionists, so this one only rings in at 40% probability, so you must look for other signs to confirm the evo-babble disease.
Upon receiving a question from the floor, the committee chairman notes that this paragraph is written in English, and it is, in fact, true. However, it is of no importance since it does not pertain to the real world in any meaningful sense; it is of no importance what "evolutionists" do, since "evolutionists" are straw men that don't exist outside of the minds of creationists.
6) Quick to invoke Occam's Razor. A solid 85% probability you have an evo-babbler in your midst.
Translation: "Evo-babblers" point out, quite reasonably, that creationism (which requires one unexplained entity) is less likely to be true than evolution (which requires zero unexplained entities).
5) Fond of strawman arguments. This is actually prevalent among evolutionists who do not worship at the Talk.Origins alter, so you only have a 50% chance he/she is a genuine evo-babbler. Look for other symptoms to confirm the evo-babbler diagnosis. However, if the evo-babbler erected the strawman by putting words into your mouth, the disease has metastasized to stage 3 and you have an 85% probability the individual has been infected with evo-babble-itis!
Translation: Creationists frequently use straw men, and project this trait onto their opponents.
4) Trys to get you to comment on what other creationists said in some other forum. About a 85% probability of evo-babble authenticity!
Translation: "Evo-babblers" try to determine what their opponents actually believe, rather than flail at straw men.
3) Claims you are quoting evolutionists out of context. An all time Talk.Origins classic! 90% probability!
Translation: Creationists frequently quote their opponents out of context, and their opponents challenge these quote mines.
2) Asks you to quote from the proper scientific literature (i.e only pro-evolution literature). This brings a solid 90% probability you have a genuine evo-babbler on your hands!
Translation: "Evo-babblers" try to stifle legitimate debate by asking for evidence, rather than accepting baseless assertions pulled from creationists' backsides.
1) And the number one sure sign cites articles from the Talk.Origins repository, where you will be fortunate to find 1 scholarly article out of every 50. If done just once, it still registers in at an impressive 80% accuracy! If they list more than one reference to Talk.Origins in the same post, you have a dead-ringer at 99.98% probability!
Translation: "Evo-babblers" who try to stifle legitimate debate cite evidence to back up their assertions. The evidence they cite generally supports their point, so it must be invalid.
After careful examination, the Committee determines that Fred Williams has no interest in legitimate debate; in fact, "evo-babbler" is likely his own nickname. Mr. Williams accuses his opponents of using straw men, yet also accuses them of "wasting time" when they attempt to avoid straw men. Furthermore, he demands that words be left vague; if all discussion must be done in vague terms, he can always claim his opponent is using a straw man.
Midway through the committee's discussion, several members excused themselves as Mr. Williams claimed that he is allowed to lie and quote out of context. He claims that his opponents are "wasting time" by exposing creationist lies and truthfully stating that he is quote mining. The Committee agrees that it is unlikely that he would approve of his opponents following suit.
Unfortunately, the Committee was forced to adjourn abruptly; towards the end of his statement, Mr. Williams claimed that evidence was a waste of time; that only people "not interested in serious, honest debate" would ask for evidence or cite evidence. At this point, several committee members were taken to the hospital due to irony overdose and severe stupidity burns. In addition, the janitor of the building next door suffered injuries from shrapnel when a nearby irony meter exploded.
The basis of life lies on the lord's intent for man to rise to the highest part of heaven.
Fred "Caesar" Williams is a poltroon who brooks no real challenge, choosing to ban rather than debate. Here are some genuine statistics from the "Evolution Fairytale" Forum.
Note of dissent from this quarter...http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=895
Please show the statistical calculations that you used to compute the values you have quoted,,,,
Any calculations?
No, a pic of your butt is not a reference to a valid source of data.
He gives himself the highest power as mod, makes rules that more or less prevent the evolution side from engaging in any sort of legitimate debate, and then gleefully bans anyone who questions his logic.
And every creationist on the site will go on using the 'debate' to prove that evolution is wrong because the other side 'lost'. They can only make their theory fit to be getting rid of every piece of evidence that disagrees, and they can only keep their delusions by getting rid of every person who disagrees.
[How to spot a creationist-fuckwad]
3) Claims you are quoting creationists/bible out of context. An all time AiG classic! 100% probability.
2) Asks you to quote from the bible. This brings a solid 100% probabilty you have a genuine creationist-fuckwad on your hands.
1) And the number one sure sign-cites the bible endlessly, where you will be fortunate to find 1 accurate verse out of the whole fairy tale. If done just once, it still registers in at an impressive 100% accuracy! If they list more than one reference to the bible in the same post,you have a dead ringer at 100% probability!
Fixed.
No wonder you're misrepresenting the Talk Origins archive, it's a good reference. I also recommend Wikipedia's "Evidence of common descent" article. And standard school textbooks like Campbell's Biology. Unless you want to get into some technical details, there's no need to go for biology journal articles, but if you do consult the reputable journals, it will not be full of anti-science propaganda... A problem may be misunderstanding what scientists are writing about, resulting in what you attempted to denounce: quote mining out of context and misrepresentation.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
