Logical fallacies


 * Equivocation between tautological assertions or axioms(non-fallacious), propositions(fallacy) and expressions(non-fallacy).
 * Confusing Circular reasoning with the the three main types of tautology, a tautology and begging the question isn't the same thing.

Circular reasoning: If Tiktaalik had no kids, how could he be the ancestor of anybody? Dawkins asked: who made God? He begged the question, because the premise by YEC is that God himself wasn't created therefore the question, logically isn't raised. His question implied that YEC believed God himself was created, yet never raise the question who made him. He thus misstated or twisted the premise, attempting to show that the YEC conclusion doesn't follow logically from their premise

He considers the YEC premise irrational, he then attempted to show that the YEC conclusion from their premise is irrational by not formulating the YEC premise in his question: Who made God.

The YEC conclusion not to raise the question - who made God - is a rational inference from their premise that God wasn't created. If a person asserts - the sun is shining, it wouldn't therefore be irrational for him not to raise the question: why isn't the sun shining. Note that raising the question, isn't the same thing as begging the question. YEC assert that God is defined as not created and not reducible to a falsifiable construct, which means that only He can reveal himself under his own terms as he did 2000 years ago when He became flesh.


 * Equivocation between redundancy, functionality and complexity in discussing Irreducible Functionality.
 * Using volitional type language from the Pattern or design context, but rejecting the Platonic binary opposites that such language represented before the Age of Enlightenment, resulting in Meaningless sentences.
 * Authors using oxymoron terms like 'natural selection' and not knowing whether they use it as a metaphor or not and if a metaphor can't explain what this metaphor represents in the knowledge context pre genes(Darwin) and post genes.
 * Assuming that by deductive reasoning we will eventually arrive at ultimate truth. This violates Tarski Semantic theorem of truth and Godel's incompleteness theorem. In any logical description, there will always be something we must assume and will never be able to prove. Materialism is a violation of Godel.
 * Using concepts such as Life1 itself as if it was defined: Life1 itself isn't defined within materialist premises and thus the term Biology - study of life isn't available to them: one can't formulate theories about water without knowing that water is defined as H2O as per Prof. Cleland, see - Life1.
 * False analogy - pending
 * Innocence by association - Fallacy used when erroneously trying to equate F=ma with a tautological proposition, in order to associate a fallacious tautological argument with it and thus extract it from its tautological implications. JohnWilkins attempts to do this( get citations at some time) - Physics equations aren't tautologies
 * retrospective specification - fallacy used to bypass arguments about how it will take more than eternity to get a cell formation, never mind an elephant.