I only resorted to the Fred Flintstone comparison AFTER:
1. The picture of the footprints started to remind me of CARTOONS
2. You CONSISTENTLY refused to accept that people were trying (TRYING) to explain to you how science works and providing you NUMEROUS alternative hypotheses ONLY TO HAVE YOU CLAIM that nothing was provided against your original citation.
This is how you operate. It is how Creationism works. Creationists worship doubt above all other things. Doubt is the savior of Creationism.
Doubt because "you can't prove 100% these AREN'T human footprints!".
Doubt because "you can't convince ME that all your science means anything and so I'll just ignore all the science you DO provide" (did you notice how you glossed over completely the questions I raised about both your Polonium Halo gambit and the footprint gambit?
Of course! You are to be given a gold medal for skipping over all the stuff people bothered to explain to you.
Because then you can continue the "DOUBT".
And your "martydom".
You are a martyr indeed...but only to your own willful ignorance.
And you are consistently (CONSISTENTLY) rude in simply replying to INFORMATION-LOADED posts with a simple response to one thing as if nothing else was in that post.
You are rude. Sorry if you think that rudeness only comes in the form of a nasty word.
Your actions are your fruit. And by your fruit I know ye.
why do you quote Bible verses when you don't believe the Bible, thats nonsequitur.
secondly, you continue your fallacy. What I mean is you are addressing the poster not the post. This you use "my rudeness" as a red herring to distract from the fact that your arguments have no solid factual data. I am sorry if pointing out the blunt truth to you appears to be rude. Jesus told off the pharisees in a rude manner, because they were haughty. I don't mean to hurt feelings, I mean to be truthful.
If you wish to know what fallacies there are I have a short post about them:
Ad Hominem Examples
- A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty.
- A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
- Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs.
- Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.”
- Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
- Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.”
- Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.”
- Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
- Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.”
- Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.”
- Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?”
- Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.”
- Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
- Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle."
above examples from :
Ad Hominem Examples
do you recognize any of these fallacies?:
it might have been a Homo cartoonus
Indicating what myself and a professor of geology has described as legitimate you, without evidence, are ridiculing? Making Fun of it, and posting cartoon characters for others to laugh at? Is that honest in debate? No it's ad hominem.
Equivocation: "evolution" has six meanings. (see notes on Hovind)
Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word
evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean
“change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that
organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly
legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an
argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating
evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the
sense of “common descent.”
Fallacy of equivocation
You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong
because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are
constantly changing and adapting to their environment.”
Non Sequitor: "Doesn't follow." Notice that many
times in debates when a particular perspective has no contributing
premises anymore, or supporting facts, they will resort to a certain
amount of word fillers (time wasters.) In order to fill in the time
gap during the debate, where they lack real factual support, or have
exhausted theirs. They typically have used terminology not as a means of
relaying true information, but as a means of committing a fallacy of an
appeal to authority of sorts. I do this too, but it is dishonest in
debate. It is best to define terms implicitly and not as a result of
showing off vocabulary to distinguish ones authority of lack of
authority. Simply knowing terminology does not in fact prove ones
authority. It may simply mean that one may like reading dictionaries
in his spare time. These fallacies may overlap with a Red Herring,
Dependent on if the person is willfully doing this or not.
The Fallacy of Begging the question, more commonly known as "circular
reason," or arbitrary logic:
When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statement." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.
An example of this is: “Evolution is true because it is scientific”
It begs the question as to what legitimate science is. Especially in relation to Evolution. In other words it presupposes evolution is scientific without laying out the argument why it is scientific.
Appeal to authority and Appeal to the populous:
Examples: Evolution is true because everyone believes it. Truth is not made on the basis of the popular vote. OR Evolution is true because the majority of scientists are evolutionists: This is an appeal to authority, and just because a scientist believes it does not make evolution 100% correct. For example scientists believed in spontaneous generation for many years, or blood letting for example. So the appeal to authority is a fallacy. Something is true based on it’s scientific data, not on how many believe it.
Circular and arbitrary arguments are not useful because anyone who
denies the conclusion would also deny the premise (since the
conclusion is essentially the same as the premise).
So, the argument,
“Evolution must be true because it is a fact,”
-while technically valid, is fallacious because the arguer has merely assumed
what he is trying to prove.
again we must go OUTSIDE the statment to declare it true.
Arbitrary assumptions are not to be used
in logical reasoning because we could equally well assume the exact
opposite. It would be just as legitimate to argue,
“Evolution cannot
be true because it is false.”
It should also be noted that there are certain special cases where
circular reasoning is unavoidable and not necessarily fallacious.
Remember that begging the question is not invalid; it is considered
fallacious because it is arbitrary. But what if it were not arbitrary?
There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be
assumed at the outset, but is not arbitrary.2 Here is an example:
Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
We can make an argument.
Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
This argument is perfectly reasonable, and valid. But it is subtly
circular. This argument is using a law of logic called modus tollens
to prove that there are laws of logic. So, we have tacitly assumed
what we are trying to prove. But it is absolutely unavoidable in this
case. We must use laws of logic to prove anything—even the existence
of laws of logic.
[Self Defeating argument (see below)]
However, the above argument is not arbitrary. We do have a good reason
for assuming laws of logic, since without them we couldn’t prove
anything. And perhaps most significantly, anyone attempting to
disprove the existence of laws of logic would have to first assume
that laws of logic do exist in order to make the argument. He would
refute himself.
Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are
of the fallacious begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary.
Consider the evolutionist who argues:
“The Bible cannot be correct because it says that stars were
created in a single day; but we now know that it takes millions of
years for stars to form.”
By assuming that stars form over millions of years, the critic has
taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created. He has
tacitly assumed the Bible is wrong in his attempt to argue that the
Bible is wrong; he has begged the question. Another example is:
“We know evolution must have happened, because we are here!”
This argument begs the question, since the way we got here is the very
point in question.
Watch for arguments that subtly presume (in an arbitrary way) what the
critic is attempting to prove. In particular, evolutionists will often
take for granted the assumptions of naturalism, uniformitarianism,
strict empiricism (the notion that all truth claims are answered by
observation and experimentation), and sometimes evolution itself. But,
of course, these are the very claims at issue. When an evolutionist
takes these things for granted, he is not giving a good logical reason
for his position; he is simply arbitrarily asserting his position."
above clip from:
Logical
Fallacies: The Fallacy of Begging the Question - Answers in
Genesis
or yet another fallacy: below from creationmoments.com
" A very common example of this comes in the form of, "There wasn't
enough water in the Biblical Flood to cover all the mountains" or
"Where did all the water go?"
What they are asserting is that there wasn't enough water to cover the
present-day mountains. This is fallacious because they are presuming
evolutionary time scales for the rates of the mountains forming – that
is, millions of years. This means that the mountains we have today
would have been nearly identical in height just 4,500 years ago at the
time of the Flood. This is begging the question because the premise of
their argument assumes long ages are true in order to argue that long
ages are true (and, thus, that the Flood could not have happened).
If, as creationists say, the mountains we have today formed rapidly,
starting during the Flood, then there is no problem with the amount of
water we have today covering the Earth. Thus, the Flood account only
seems inconsistent if you don't use all of the Flood model's premises.
Taken together, the Flood model explains consistently the evidence we
have in the geologic record.
above clip from
LOGICAL
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION 101: BEGGING THE QUESTION | Creation
Moments
Self Defeating argument :
“God of the Bible is evil, but I don’t believe in absolute moral truth.”- is an example of a self defeating argument.
Although few would admit it, our rejection of
religious and moral truth is often on volitional rather than intellectual
grounds—we just don’t want to be held accountable to any moral
standards or religious doctrine. So we blindly accept the self-defeating
truth claims of politically correct intellectuals who tell us that truth does not
exist; everything is relative; there are no absolutes; it’s all a matter of opinion;
you ought not judge; religion is about faith, not facts! Perhaps Augustine was
right when he said that we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it
when it convicts us. Maybe we can’t handle the truth.
-Geisler, N. L., & Turek, F. (2004). I Don't Have Enough Faith
to Be an Atheist. Crossway Books.
