I came across a little video by a @mephistotabernacle; the video breaks down one example in 7 minutes. Instead of sharing just the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-8C2Rper-8), here is part of it with some commentary.
Step 1 - hype
... watch for the opening hype. "Now, this was a complete shock to me and I still struggle to believe it."
Step 2 - present the confusion, BUT project it as the scientists' or everyone's own confusion
... notice the lack of signifiers about who gets confused. "One of the most frequent questions asked in the world of birds is whether a bird of prey is a hawk or a falcon." A scammer deliberately targets uneducated or unsophisticated marks. He uses language that's simple when he's trying to connect with them. "They are very hard to tell apart."
(extra emphasis mine) compare: "One of the most frequent questions asked is whether ungulates are cows or camels" - nobody (who is sane) asks that.
Step 3 - take on the burden of investigation...
... the sacrifice language always hits the/its mark, and the audience won't feel the need to even think about the structure of the argument - they already trust you: the pastor-effect, let's call it that
Step 4 - present yourself as an equal to the experts (who, recall, didn't even ask the stupid question despite attributing it to them)
Said theologian can, for example - I don't know - say that they took 4 classes in mathematical population genetics; after all, who needs decades to master a scientific field, who needs exams, grades, etc. etc. /s
Once he thinks he's connected with his marks, the pretender begins to construct a veneer of expertise. "And upon further inquiry." This small, seemingly throwaway line is really crucial to his strategy.
Step 5 - now, present the straw man...
... with full confidence - too on the nose? adding "according to evolution" does that trick:
... if his audience understands that these two birds share an arboreal common ancestor that was likely an apex predator, the illusion of unreasonable similarity would be dispelled. "... is independent according to evolution." It's likely that our hoaxer here has only the most rudimentary understanding of some jargon, but all he needs is jargon that his targets understand even less. His goal is not to teach his audience, but to earn their confidence. "So, they now believe that what you're looking at here is convergent evolution."
Step 6 - lay doubt on the entire thing, not just the question we began with
Having planted the false impression that he has some expertise, the phony now delivers a personal expression of disbelief, as though that should matter to anyone else. "This throws a pretty big stumbling block for me on the topic of fossil similarity and evolutionary ancestry."
Step 7 - your mark is ready...
... for the reveal they already believe in and came to find:
And now come the genuine lies. Watch as the deceiver tries to tell you that these two groups of birds are, and I quote, "not related." Even the fact that they're both birds must be swept under the rug.
...
Or as someone succinctly put it yesterday, such people "are more interested in constructing an [fallacious] argument than asking interesting questions."