Creationist arguments are full of logical fallacies

In the past year I have been getting more interested in the scepticism. There is an organisation called the New England Sceptical Society who publishes a podcast every week that I highly recommend you listen to, they have a list of the top 20 logical fallacies [1] that should be read by all, a logical fallacy is a logical flaw in an argument that does not prove anything.

The most common type if logical fallacy I see in responses to my videos is the straw man, a straw man argument argues against a position that was created artificially by the arguer rather than your actual view, I constantly see my views mis-represented and have to point out to the reviewer that they either didn’t see the video or they are meaningfully mis-representing it.

Another common argument is ad hominem, which states that a persons views are not valid because of some characteristic of their personality. E.g. "Your video is rubbish because you just hate women", not true by the way.

A particularly annoying logical fallacy I have seem used in many occasions is where an analogy is used as a proof for an argument, the place I have seen this the most is in the arguments of creationists. Here is a blatant example: (clip shown in video)

An analogy is a similarity between the features of two things. What is done in this video is an analogy but it seeks to prove the authors argument via that analogy. It specifically states that to believe the analogy is what is needed to believe the base theory and the analogy is ridiculed as if it were the base theory itself.

This clip also employs three more logical fallacies did you spot them?

One of them is a straw man argument, evolution does not propose the creation of organisms by chance, but rather by successive modifications.

One is the argument from personal incredulity, look at this ridiculous situation I cannot understand it or understand how it is true, so it must be false.

Reductio ad absurdum, in which an absurd conclusion comes from legitimate premises, evolution does include random changes in DNA which is an element of chance, but the process of natural selection selects good strains.

Four logical fallacies in the space of a minute, this is why creationists and ID supporters are wilfully ignorant, dishonest and pompous arses who should be shunned.

A good analogy explains a theory by drawing a comparison between situations which are easier to understand in the aim of explaining the theory more clearly. To sum it up, the analogy does not become the argument but is made merely to complement it. Staying on the theme, an example of a good analogy is one used by Richard dawkins which he called "climbing mount improbable" (clip shown in video)