There are lots of web pages about logical fallacies, but this looks like a good introduction. "Straw man" is on the index list there. (Russ' mantra of "you believe that rocks turn into humans" is a good example of a straw man argument.) Basically you want to avoid logical fallacies in your arguments because they are errors in reasoning. You also want to be accurate when you accuse other people of using logical fallacies. Creationists here seem to be fond both of using logical fallacies, and wrongly accusing others of doing so without explaining their reasons for saying so. (CTD is particularly fond of crying "straw man" and "circular reasoning" in this way because he seems to think that by doing so, he invalidates anything that's been said.) An interesting exercise would be to look through this forum and spot some more examples. Other creationist favourites here are (working down the index list on that particular page) ad hominem, appeal to authority, appeal to belief/consequences of belief (also known as wishful thinking), appeal to emotion, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, begging the question . . . gosh, we're still only on the Bs. Better stop there for now.
I think logic should be taught as a standard in school curricula. It sure would be a handy life tool for people to use.
LindaLou is fond of the false accusation, frequently accusing creationists of employing logical fallacies. Of course one who has more than the most superficial knowledge about them can see that her claims are bogus.
The longest running dispute is about Russ' rocks-to-man simplification. They claim this is a straw man when obviously it's just a countermeasure against their proof by verbosity. But since they insist on indoctrinating students with rocks-to-man, it can hardly be a straw man.
Furthermore, the appropriate response to a straw man situation is to do as I have done in this thread: point it out, and let the opposition continue beating on it. But when Russ attacks rocks-to-man they always come to its defense. They must because it's exactly, precisely what they believe in.
I may add to this response when I have more time. I foresee a chuckle or two.
Edit: 'Argumentum verbosium' is technically the more accurate term rather than 'proof by verbosity', but I deemed it best to use the term that's easiest to look up.
Last edited by CTD; 07/26/0803:56 AM. Reason: technicality
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth
"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm
"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
