Destroying bad arguments

AronRa covers a chick tract in detail]
Sometimes laughing at creationists is just silly, sometimes it has some value. AronRa knows his stuff and likes to laugh not only at the simple stuff but also can explain just why Piltdown Man is not an argument against evolution. Also, about 2/3 through, when the professor can’t answer a question about gluons, it is offered as evidence that ALL of his arguments are wrong. AronRa and the hosts of the show have a good time with this. It seems silly, but I’ve seen it done even in business. In the tract, several questions are posed by the professor and the smarty student doesn’t really answer them, he just gives a wrong answer or non-answer and moves on. But this doesn’t matter, because the only important thing (for Jack Chick) is that there is some unprovable thing, because that is offered as proof that God must exist and all the mythology is true.
I see people doing this with politics too. Like saying because a kid stole some cigars, the cop was justified in shooting him and the entire police force was justified in enforcing Marshall law. Or because a hospital in Arizona had some financial trouble due to overuse of their emergency room, we should seal our borders from refugees.

Lausten, I just read an article that seems to fit into this thread.
Not so much the destroying, but the recognizing of.

Science as a house of cards by Scott K. Johnson | 02/24/2013 http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com Opponents of well-established scientific ideas (like evolution or climate change) often have to resort to the same playbook. If you can’t produce scientific evidence to support your position, your options are pretty limited. Opponents commonly feel that if they can just show that there are problems with the consensus explanation, their preferred explanation will come out on top by default. They can wade into the details and point to remaining unknowns, questions for which there are still several competing answers, or topics for which their limited understanding leads them to think they’ve discovered an error. This seems to be motivated by, or at least accompany, a mental model of the scientific consensus as a house of cards. All you need to do is dislodge one of the cards (supporting pieces of evidence) and the entire structure will come tumbling down. I think this sometimes results from conspiratorial thinking. If the scientists who are part of the consensus cabal have falsified their work and lied to preserve the Great Lie, then surely the clues will take you to the proof that dispels the sham. And if you think of the consensus idea as some a priori position that the scientists have merely gathered evidence to defend, you might think of the science as a vulnerable construct put together to prop up the consensus. All you need to do is discover what inconvenient evidence was left out in the interest of structural integrity. Obviously, this mental model fundamentally misunderstands the nature of science. Instead of viewing the evidence as intentionally constructed because of an idea, it should be (mostly) understood as a haphazard collection that just so happens to result in the consensus. Perhaps it’s better to imagine piles of rocks. … http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/science-as-a-house-of-cards/
AronRa covers a chick tract in detail]
Oh yea, AronRa, wish I had the time to look at that video now, since I know the dude puts out some very good take downs of the Creationist's nonsense. Will do it later, thanks for the tip. :)

The house of cards idea no doubt stems from the actual one built by the rulers in Western Europe. Theirs was held up by military might but once people got tired of fighting their wars for them, the whole thing came tumbling down. People realized they were being lied to and started looking for a better way. This can’t happen all at once unfortunately, so gullible people get born every day, and are purposely withheld from education, so the pattern repeats. It’s tempting too. Once you realize that something you learned in school, or something your father told you is not 100% accurate, you realize you have to A) believe someone else B) ignore new evidence and stick to what you believed before or C) do the hard work of figuring it out, possibly living with the unknown.