Such a typical tactic. Which fallacy is this one, that of trying to redirect away from the topic at hand by introducing irrelevants? The colored fish-bait one? What’s the fallacy of taking one’s words and changing one word and throwing it back to sound like you’re sooooo wicked-smaht? The lack of capability of thought fallacy?
This particular article happens to have the agenda of taking a little research biology information coupled with the ignorance of the reader.....drawing the false conclusion that “See, they’re wrong...God did it”....while trying to claim that it’s a scientific conclusion.
Of course, he didn’t say how it leads to “Man walked with dinosaurs”....but ICR/YEC “scientists” don’t like talking about that one much.
Such a typical tactic. Evolutionists have been ignoring the multiple fallacies that underlay evolution for years. Personal credulity, equivocation, the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the appeal to the fallacy of negative proof, the ‘a priori’ assumption of naturalism, begging the question or any number of other fallacious lines of thought.
The fallacy of personal credulity for believing that ‘nature did it’ is inherent in ‘scientific’ papers every day, but where is your indignation at that fallacy supposedly supporting a ‘scientific’ conclusion?
Of course, you don’t mind invoking the fallacy of cherry-picking yourself when you think it makes a good argument. Too bad you don’t have the critical-thinking skills to recognize your own logical errors.