The (un)Intelligent Design 'Word Salad' Generator

Are you a creationist troll who's trying to argue agaisnt evolution, but you're having trouble because you don't know anything about science? Now you can type a lot, without really saying anything at all! This page generates some random rambling rhetoric, with the look of a real "pro":

Dickie Kepslocker says:

Want a new example? Just refresh this page.

How to "win" an argument, RK style:

1. Post a claim that conflicts with currently known science, or claim that some existing science is wrong
2. Reply to any counter-arguments with rhetoric

3. When asked to clarify or answer questions, reply with just rhetoric and change the subject. More specifically, utilize one or more the following:
   • a) playing the victim card ("You're a big meanie!")
   • b) 'tu quoque' fallacies
   • c) puns that don't really make much sense, and/or
   • d) some sort of red herring such as a "he said / she said" game, grammar debates, the effectiveness of Google, theology, etc.
4. Keep repeating #1-3 (especially #3) until your opponents realize that it's impossible to discuss science with you since it's like talking to a wall, and leave out of frustration. Then declare victory!

How to "win" an argument, Christopher Haynes / AndTheHorse / D.Yarnell style:

1. Keep repeating step #1 as described above.

Helpful terms:

• Dunning-Kruger effect
• The Gish Gallop: "throw out a barrage of nonsense so fast that your opponent doesn't have time to pick them all apart and show why they're wrong"
• Kepler Canter: Reply with 5 paragraphs stating that evolution is simply wrong and "evolutionists" are stupid, evil, dishonest, or any related words that can be dug up in a thesaurus. Do NOT, under any circumstances, explain WHY exactly this is with any examples. Do not address any actual scientific details. Do not present any evidence as to why creationism is true. Stick with attacks on "evolutionism". When cornered, resort to "tu quoque" fallacies.
• Haynes Hypnosis: Repeat the same things over and over again. Never respond to refutations or questions. Keep repeating claims until people get tired of answering and maybe start including some insults. Then claim yourself undefeated. (It also helps if people who are new to the thread only see the last stages, then chime in to your defense.)
• Brent Block: Log in using different accounts, to give the illusion that you have more people agreeing with you. Copy and paste the same arguments every month. When people successfully prove you wrong, click "Ignore This User" on their posts.

Also, for helpful reference:

• Minotaurs are real! Or so "two ministers" say.
• Some of the few (albeit wacky) attempts at a scientific hypothesis from a creationist:
  • The alleged Artificial Selection of Homninids
  • The Intelligent Earth Hypothesis. Though I think "World Thinking Force" would have made for a better abbreviation.
  • Faith as a Physical Force. Yes, really!
  • "ID Prediction: The Next Step in Human Evolution". ID makes a prediction about how evolution will continue, therefore evolution must be non-existent. Er, sure.
  • "DNA's formatting is in essence a perfectly shaped rock." As opposed to the irregular rocks in his head.
  • HABITABLE ZONE EARTH-SIZE PLANET TENDENCY ID HYPOTHESIS. "Currently we are setting the probability that all Earth to Mars-size planets in applicable star system appear in the habitable zones of stars at 95% if ID is right. What do we mean by applicable? We are looking only at stars having at least one earth-approximate planet (in size) for hypothesis-testing purposes. If less than 95 percent of roughly Earth-sized planets fall within that zone, then ID is not supported." Which is, as one other person posted in response, "A false assumption, given that rocky 'terrestrial' planets will generally form relatively close to a star."
• See the response questions posted several times, including this post from Dec 8, 2011 9:55:55 AM PST. Also the creationist's response originally stamped Dec 9, 2011 1:12:35 AM PST (and edited later). He spent most the following weeks claiming that he posted it but refused to make the effort to show where, probably hoping we wouldn't find it. Well, there it is. He tries rehashing it here on Dec 9, 2011 4:14:12 PM PST too.
• And finally(?), the response post from Dec 23, 2011 4:37:58 AM PST, posted here.
• Also helpful is the talk.origins usenet group's archive, especially their Index to Creationist Claims. Always a handy reference, since creationists tend to just use the same arguments we've already heard millions of times before.
• And for people who missed 8th grade science class, the difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. ("Theorem" by the way is a mathematics term, not a science term.)
• Oh, and if you ever see a creationist who keeps claiming that Dr. Koonin had evidence that favors creationism, that person is quote-mining and lying about what Dr. Koonin actually said.

Other pages here:

• An Index of AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" videos and transcripts.
• The Fake Argument Flowchart
• Partial list of R.Morris Failures (further down on same page)