[
It's not a logical fallacy to point out your own pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
I understand, after all, fallacy is as close to logic as you ever get. But of course your arguments against the man are indeed a well understood fallacy.
I notice you still haven't answered my question. Are the odds 1/64, or are they 1/30,000,000,000?
Ignoratio elenchi
Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the
avoiding the issue fallacy, the
red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
Logical Form:
Argument A is presented by person 1.
Person 2 introduces argument B.
Argument A is abandoned.
Example #1:
Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that?
Ken: But what is morality exactly?
Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures.
Ken: But who creates this code?...
Explanation: Ken has successfully derailed this conversation off of his sexual digressions to the deep, existential, discussion on morality.
Example #2:
Billy: How could the universe be 6000 years old when we know the speed of light, the distance of astronomical objects (13+ billion light years away), and the fact that the light has reached us
[1]?
Marty: 6000 years is not a firm number. The universe can be as old as about 10,000 years.
Billy: How do you figure that?...
Explanation: Marty has succeeded in avoiding the devastating question by introducing a new topic for debate... shifting the young-earth creation timeline where it does not necessarily coincide with the Bible.
