40 Fallacies and Tactics Creationists use (And Why you should avoid them)

[Mogley52]

ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)

[Mogley52]

EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.

[Mogley52]

NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.

[Mogley52]

ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

[Mogley52]

WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.

[Nedspodos]

EXCELLENT VIDEO!!! I was looking for a video to help myself avoid logical fallacies in debates.

[Psykomancer]

The truth is you pronounce the latin and greek terms perfectly, in their original pronunciation. However in different languages (including english) they are modified to be easy on the tongue. My first language is also really different from english (bulgarian) and the differences are staggering.

Great video btw, I really appreciate all the work you've put in it :)

[lapkine77]

@Psykomancer Thanks. I'm nearly done on a similar project to this one if you are interested in learning 20 more fallacies creationists use :)

[GeneralInsomnia]

Now what am I supposed to do if someone rejects the validity of logical fallacies and thinks they can use them if they want?

[lapkine77]

@GeneralInsomnia Then they don't understand why the logic behind fallacies fails. If you have explained it to them but they don't care, it's because they are too stupid or arrogant to know better, either way they aren't interested in logical explanations and positions so no point in arguing further.

[LogicalThinker667]

I watched the entire video O_O

[lapkine77]

@LogicalThinker667 lol I hope you liked it ^_^

[LogicalThinker667]

@lapkine77 of course I did, Also I bet you could replace those creationist clips with race realist clips and you'd get the same results.

[sydtocreation]

You can't speak english for shit, But your points are spot on.

[lapkine77]

@sydtocreation That's why I put text ^_^

[gronkar66]

@sydtocreation

He's not a native speaker. His english is amazingly good.

[MrLogic56]

Good job. Do you have this in written form?

[Artifactorfiction]

Your accent is fine until you hit certain latin phrases like non-sequitur or greek names like socrates ? then it becomes very french I think - sorry but the mixture of accents is unusual - still, great content - good vid.

[delataylor]

Thank you for taking the time in putting this together. It was fun, but why do you talk like that?

[saarvaakan]

Very nice .I have encountered so many of these arguments when i engaged in argument with creationists.Thank you.Keep it up

[nickst0ne]

I disagree with the part "syllogistic reasoning". Syllogistic reasoning is actually a valid method of argumentation. What we must warn against is the pitfalls of syllogisms, like flawed premises or the inversion of premises when building a conclusion. But in itself, syllogistic reasoning is a method of valid inference, not a method for bullshitting.

[lapkine77]

@nickst0ne I agree - however I urge caution using too much of it, since the method (like any other method) has its own limits. Namely that it can deductively prove contradictory and absurd things we know are invalid (that's the issue I'd say. I would have to add an annotation but I am too lazy :P)

[DrSpooglemon]

Fantastic. 2 months well spent my friend. I had always been aware of these types of arguments but had not all the names to ascribe to them.

Thanx...

[DrSpooglemon]

You have a strange way of pronouning those latin phrases. Sort of like a combination of spanish and french pronunciations...

[ShadowFoxSF]

False Dichotomy also doesn't take into account that there may be a 3rd 4th, or 100th other option/position/side to the argument

[ShadowFoxSF]

In the summer there is an increase in the consumption of Ice cream as well as an increase in the number of drownings.

:P so don't eat ice cream people, you're more likely to drown /CorrelationImpliesCausationFa­llacy

When there's also more people swimming and such involved but that's not looked at.

[shumble32]

As has been pointed out before, we are all prone to similar errors.

And of course there are one or two weaknesses but even so this is still a great work, very much appreciated and I'll keep it as a reference for the future.

[iPlayWithPhysics]

"Argumentum Ex Culo" + French accent = ..can't find a word: epic.

[Morkindie]

Thank you. I think we all make some of these mistakes sometimes and it is important to remain intellectually honest.

[lapkine77]

@zelos88 That's because I pronounce it FRENCH STYLE :P

[qtzlctl2012]

@lapkine77 it's kind of distracting

[lapkine77]

@qtzlctl2012 Just like a...

*puts sunglasses on*

...Red Herring

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA­HHH !!!

[qtzlctl2012]

@lapkine77 okay, that's pretty funny.

but that's got to be #41, appeal to humor :-p

[lapkine77]

@qtzlctl2012 Very clever ! Unfortunately you have fallen into my trap by using the APPEAL TO FALLACY MUAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

[qtzlctl2012]

@lapkine77 Appeal to fallacy fallacy is a circular reasoning fallacy. and now it's an argumentum ab nauseum

shit, did it again

[lapkine77]

@qtzlctl2012 Now you're using an Argumentum Ex Culo man ! ;P

And it's "AD Nauseam", not "AB Nauseam" :)

[qtzlctl2012]

@lapkine77 that's a typical case of "argumentum ad it's-a-fucking-typo-get-over-i­t"

much used on youtube forums

[lapkine77]

@qtzlctl2012 lol good run ;)

[alchron]

Love this video, thank you because this makes things simpler for me in terms of arguments (just point them here and let their brain explode).

[HOLYdpsBATMAN]

One quick correction. Syloogistic reason is not a fallcy. It is the basis of logic in all practical terms. It has it's own sort and share of fallacies that can be made when doing syllogisms, but it is not a fallacy.

You say that it can be used to prove the absurd or contadictory, this is just untrue. It can be misused in this way, but it is like science. I can tell you that Jesus was a clone and back it up with some garbage scientific babble, but anyone who is learned in science would laugh.

[HOLYdpsBATMAN]

@HOLYdpsBATMAN As Logicians, we label them unsound premises. It is no more a fallacy then science itself, if you are mistaken or being intentionally dishonest it will be obvious to those who know the field and it will be outed and tossed out.

Sorry about my typos, my droid hates me.

[lapkine77]

@HOLYdpsBATMAN No biggie, I make multiple comments too :D

But thanks for expressing yourself. It's been a while since I didn't get reaquainted with this video of mine :)

[lapkine77]

@HOLYdpsBATMAN Syllogism is a specific type of argumentative tool. It has great demonstrative power, and it is so efficient at it that you can deductively prove, using a syllogism, something that is absurd. That is why this tool should be used with extreme caution (and preferably, with other arguments to support it).

Here is another example (aside from the dog cat one) :

"Everything that is rare is expensive,

A cheap horse is rare,

Therefore, a cheap horse is expensive"

[HOLYdpsBATMAN]

@lapkine77 Again though, this is not a sound argument. This is where the logic side comes into play. For us to view that this is a sound and valid syllogism both premises A and B must be true and the conclusion that must follow logically from those premises. In this case, "Everything that is rare is expensive" is an untrue premise. All one has to do is punch a hole in this premeise and you win. Take for example an apology from a foe. It is both rare and without expense.

[HOLYdpsBATMAN]

@HOLYdpsBATMAN I completely agree that one should be careful when using a syllogism, as they are concrete and quite easy to debunk if they are wrong. But the fallacies lay within syllogistic reasoning, they are not inherent in its stucture. Only the misapplication or intentional deception using unsound/invalid arguments constitute a fallacy.

[lapkine77]

@HOLYdpsBATMAN Indeed, you are correct. Logic would dictate that's not true.

In regards to the 2 examples given, the conclusion is deductively drawn from the 2 premises as far as the syllogism is concerned. We know it's a ridiculous conclusion, but in such cases the 2 premises are (rather) valid which gives more power to the deduction that leads to the last proposition (if you get what I mean).

cont

[lapkine77]

cont

The Fallacy here is that reasoning too much with a tool that can deductively prove anything can be detrimental to a position, hence a call to caution.

As a law student I prefer logic based on premise-following premises rather than Syllogisms (which is more found in the domain of Philosophy. Not surprising then to see WLC use it since he has a degree in that field)

Yes, it is a fallacy named "False Premise" which I also discuss about in this video. Can we be fwends ? :D

[HOLYdpsBATMAN]

@lapkine77 Haha WLC does not have a degree in Philosophy. He has a Theology degree that goes under the name of Philosophy. He would never have passed a true philosophy.

I am totally on board with your video, though I was disappointed to not see the "No True Scottsman Fallacy" as I am a former Theist and get that one thrown in my face quite often,

[HOLYdpsBATMAN]

And I agree with you, but I would still say that premise-based logic is still syllogistic as it leaves no room for inference, It is just damn hard to squeeze into a syllogism because you would literally have compound syllogisms that are a page long. I am a Philosophy brat and a J.D. So I totally get where you are coming from...

Indeed, let's!

[lapkine77]

@HOLYdpsBATMAN LOL my bad then XD

I am actually working on an Ammendum with 20 more fallacies, but it's very hard to find some examples in Creationist videos. You wouldn't happen to have an example of a Creationist making a True Scotsman fallacy, would you ?

[HOLYdpsBATMAN]

@lapkine77 Sent it to you in a message.

[ExSaint1379]

Why are you not a fan of Richard Dawkins? I'm not a Richard Dawkins lackey, but I've read his books, and they were all thoroughly enjoyable and contained a lot of interesting things. I don't always agree with him, but I don't think I have to agree with anyone 100% of the time to like them.

[lapkine77]

@ExSaint1379 I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins simply because his stuff isn't to my taste, whether you find it interesting or not. Is there something wrong with that ?

[ExSaint1379]

@lapkine77 Not at all. I was just curious. Different people have different tastes. There's nothing wrong with that.

[SuperSoylent2]

Damn, that narator shure has a sexy voice!

Great job putting this together my friend.

[lapkine77]

@SuperSoylent2 It took me a lot of time to do this project (around 3 months) mostly to find examples in creationist videos. I also have an appendix ready but it's hard to find these other arguments since they are more rare :)

[VyckRo]

and I have similar a project about atheism

[lapkine77]

@VyckRo Hope it's not as long though XD

[VyckRo]

@lapkine77

of course! is an entire book :-)

[happyskunk]

s-sorry i had to stop at the part about more words on evolution in text books leading to teen sex. I was laughing to hard to go on. ok I think i'm good now.

[coconopalito]

hurt my bum by watching all in one sitting...

Me and my old brother allways discuss, and now a days we can identify all fallacies, and since im the one who is usually wrong im subdued to use them. THX for the lesson

[journeyer58]

This is the best explanation of 'argumentation' I have ever seen or heard. Extremely rich in detail and scope. I have enjoyed watching and learning from you. Please continue your solid work on creating such videos. Your scope was excellent and your breadth of knowledge was superb. Thank you for making this video. This is well worth the time to absorb and learn the information presented.

[JCLeSinge]

You left out the Fallacy-Fallacy; it's important to note that defeating an opponent's logic by highlighting fallacies does *not* automatically prove your own position to be correct. First, it's a form of False Dichotomy ("You're wrong, therefore I'm right"), second, it is possible to arrive at a correct conclusion by unsound logic; Nellie is an elephant, Nellie is pink, therefore all elephants have trunks; calling that out as a Non-Sequiter would not prove that elephants do not have trunks.

[lapkine77]

@JCLeSinge I'm thinking about making an appendix to this with more such fallaies made by creationists. If you have links of creationists making these fallacies, that would really be handy

[JCLeSinge]

@lapkine77: Try the website "Answers in Genesis", specifically "12 arguments evolutionists should avoid" and the sister page detailing arguments that Creationists should avoid (the reasons *why* these arguments should be avoided are absolutely hilarious).

[lapkine77]

@JCLeSinge I meant as YouTube clips or videos I could download.

Though the pages you recommended did make me lol XD

[JCLeSinge]

@lapkine77: Try anything from Jellytelly, the Christian answer to Sesame Street. It's more creepy and insane than any horror movie. I'd say "enjoy", but you won't, unless you're into having your brain dissolved as if acid were being poured in through your eyes and ears. I kid you not, it really is that awful. Watching the entire Saw series on LSD would be less traumatic.

[lapkine77]

@JCLeSinge I apologize for being too demanding, but don't you have serious creationist proponents on such sources ? I'm particularly looking for the Tuquoque Fallacy, the Appeal to Volume and the Argument from Fallacy. I can manage the rest of the list

[JCLeSinge]

@lapkine77: Please don't apologise; I'm happy to help, if I can. Specifics just make it easier to be helpful.

Argument from Fallacy: Good examples would be hard to come by; Creatonists don't generally grasp logic well enough to actually employ this fallacy. This is more often an Atheist fallacy, to be honest.

Appeal to Volume: Clarify; isn't this just a variant of Argument Ad Populum?

Tu Quoque: The "you too!" Fallacy. This I think I can help with; I'll look for a good example.

[lapkine77]

@JCLeSinge An appeal to volume is summed up by this Calvin & Hobbes formulation "If you can't argue with reason, go for volume !". In other words, fill the gap in logic by decibel output ;)

Please send a PM on the matter, it would be really neat

[JCLeSinge]

@lapkine77: Have you got the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy? This is an important one, since many Atheists were once Christians, and the classic Creationist answer to that is "Obviously you weren't *really8 a Christian, since no *real* Christian would ever turn away from God."

I can try and find a good example of a Creatonist using this one, if you need it; it's a very common fallacy to which I'm sure many Atheists need a good answer.

[lapkine77]

@JCLeSinge I'm a bit doubtful if the Scotsman Fallacy has any relevance to the issue, since it's more invoke in theistic-atheistic debates rather than Creationist-Evolutionist debates. But I thank you for the suggestion nontheless

[JCLeSinge]

The "Evil Cards" fallacy is also sometimes known as "Reductio Ad Hitlerum"; people play around with it, too; "Reductio Ad Stalinum", for example. You could get quite silly with it, using that form for any commonly used Ad Hominem that has an element of Slippery Slope and/or Reductio Absurdam.

[KaroKoenich]

Watching this piece by piece. Now about half through. Very nice work so far. I'm enjoying it.

[Paxmax]

Oh that is just so great:

"moar words about evolution in text books = moar teenage pregnancy and STDs !!!"

That was soooo rich! delicious! Truly a "text book" example Lapkine !!!! Waaahaha!

[innocenceagain]

Thanks very much for the mention in the info box. :)

I think this is a good list of what not to do regardless of your position on pretty much anything.

And...

NephilimFree @42:50 WHATHEHECK?!?!

....okay. O.o...that didn't look tasty (or healthy)....no offense to him.

[redlion7277]

I think you could've used nephilimfree as an example for every fallacy.

[aveyowyns]

I can't believe I watched the whole thing! But, it was good, and really kept my attention...

[aveyowyns]

I dont get how you see the Kalam as a false premise. Is it NOT true that everything that begins to exists has a cause?

[lapkine77]

@aveyowyns "The Universe has a beginning"

THIS is the False Premise :)

[aveyowyns]

@lapkine77

But, the universe does have a beginning ... doesn't it? I've never heard anyone claim that the universe doesn't have beginning. *and Craig isn't a YEC

[lapkine77]

@aveyowyns You are correct. He is an Old Earth Creationist.

Actually, we can't go further than 10^-43 seconds before the "Big Bang". That's why scientifically, we don't know if the Universe had a beginning (one cosmogenic hypothesis would have to be valid before we can say anything)

[Desertphile]

Most of the false claims and logical fallacies employed by Young Earth Creationists are more than 100 years old, found in such books like "What is Darwinism?" by Hodge. If it were merely a matter of faith, nobody would object to such beliefs; when they insist it is science, or that science and scientists are wrong, then it becomes a rightful subject to content against.

[lapkine77]

@Desertphile Agreed. The problem is with most YEC proponents is that it's not faith anymore : it's some kind of ideology, bent on changing and influencing very important social agents (scientists, teachers, politicians, etc...)

[TheApe81]

An argument from authority can be valid in science when it reflects the opinions of the overwhelming majority in the specialized field pertaining to a claim. Because, to the best of our knowledge, that authority is most likely to be correct on the matter. However it shouldn't be above criticism.

The true fallacy comes when one cites the opinions of someone highly qualified but in an irrelevant field, or when one argues from authority but the experts have not reached a consensus on the topic

[abaddon5]

While I do agree with TemporalOnline (by saying that it most likely would have been better as a series), I have to say that your research and honesty is top-notch. But you know what pisses me off? Christians like YOU are willing to point out flaws in the logic in other Christians, yet you seem to be in a very small minority.

[lapkine77]

@abaddon5 Thanks man :)

I'm an Orthodox. We are not a small minority planet-wise (we're the second largest denomination on the planet after the Catholics) but indeed in the Western World, we're a tiny minority.

[TemporalOnline]

I believe you could have done better doing it as a series, releasing each of this fallacies every day from today or every couple days or whatever...

Anyway, I liked!

[SCRulerShinoda]

I've been debating someone who thinks that aliens had a part in human creation.

[Danmill23]

Lapkine, the use of emotive language was missing from this of a video. The INSANITY of not including that fallacy was as sad as a CRIPPLED BABY. I think if you ever get the energy to make a second video on this topic you should include this one as it is used more often then a CHEAP WHORE! (;

... also the "caplocks fallacy or AD Capium AD importance-ium" was missing (;

[lapkine77]

@Danmill23 An Appeal to Emotion isn't necessarily a Fallacy. And it depends on which type of appeal to emotion you are talking about (it regroups a LOT of other fallacies, like the Ad Hominem for instance). But yes although Appeals to Emotions aren't based on reason or evidence, however they are considered valid when their purpose is not to influence one's beliefs, but rather to urge someone to act.

The Caps Lock Fallacy is an offshot of the Appeal to Volume Fallacy ;)

[Danmill23]

That was awesome Lapkine. A lot of work. Very well though out. I will spread the "good news". :)

[RevDevilin]

Well argued

But I got bored

And stop watching

;-)

[lapkine77]

@RevDevilin Obviously : it's 1 hour long LOL XD

[JTlovesDexter]

However, I was sorely disappointed there was no 'banana phone' song at the end ; (

[Hereticbooks]

Lapkine.....YOU are my favourite theist.....AND my favourite Frenchman. You can thank SnowWalkerOne for my subscription.

[flyingfisbeefilms]

Ok first of all you are French - I take my hat off to you for your excellent command of my language ( I have the impression you speak, read, understand my native language better than I do!) Secondly - this was a brilliantly crafted and highly informative video....so thank you for your effort. A tertiary statement - I had given up on creationists - my attitude is why bother BUT you have inspired me to go guns blazing again ( I mean this as a metaphor) I don't own a gun.

[JTlovesDexter]

WOW! You put a lot of effort in making this! So.....whose side are you really on? ; )

Well done, my friend!