Originally Posted by Jeanie
You know there have been cataclysmic events that occurred in quite a short period of time...such as in after the crucifixion of Christ. I don't have any website for you on that, though. Sorry.

What is a straw man?

A straw man is a logical fallacy popular among evolutionists, easily one of their top 3, and possibly their favourite.

Rather than address what creationists actually say, they construct a dummy position which they think will resemble the actual position closely enough to fool casual observers, and then (in theory) proceed to demolish the false position in order to create the illusion that they're winning the argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man says
Quote
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training.[citation needed] In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[3][not in citation given] Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw person argument,[4] straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.
You should also take the time to read up on other logical fallacies. Once a thing is named, it is much easier to identify and discuss it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies
Many the write-ups linked to on these lists were written by evolutionists, so if there's any bias you know whose side it's on.

We all have limited time, but at a minimum one should learn to recognize the favourites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Personal favorites deserve priority treatment.
Linda Lou
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
and it's reflex for her to respond to evidence with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

RAZD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity

Linear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

That last one was given special attention in my Cracking Down thread. It's an essential component of Darwinism. A couple of other noteworthy elements in the religion are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Evolutionists will frequently claim anything they can imagine is possible, therefore it must have happened (and if you dispute this you're "arguing from incredulity"); and the X Club took a lot of pride in creating a false dilemma between "science and religion".

I may have done a little more than scratch the surface here. the subject is worthy of its own thread, and we actually do have a thread available if you'd like to discuss it further.

During the brief review needed to create this post, I noticed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Quote
claims to data that are inherently unverifiable
So we already have a class that encompasses evodates. I was going to blow off
Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by The forgetful CTD
You forget that things need to be verified and reconciled. One can do neither with evodates, so they're of no practical use when investigating history.
You failed to support this opinion of yours in the "A Well Aged Earth" thread. In fact, it looks like you didn't even try to support it. What makes you think you can just blurt it out here as if it were true?
but since it is sooooooo convenient I'll just point out that appealing to the unverifiable is a form of Special Pleading, and has already made the logical fallacy list.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson