Logical Fallacy of Hifalutin' Denunciations

The Logical Fallacy of Hifalutin' Denunciations occurs when vague, but grandiose, language is used to speak against something or someone. 

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Hifalutin' Denunciations

Harvested from Youtube: “[Ken Ham] doesn’t even try to understand science; he even said during his debate with Bill Nye that nothing would change his mind. Ken Ham is a closed-minded bigot.”

The phrase, “doesn’t understand science” is one of the meaningless cliches used by those who are trying to make a case against God, Jesus Christ or the Bible. In fact, there is no information in this personal attack. Science is undefined and probably means "Atheism."

Beyond that, without Divine revelation, all human thought is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The debate was largely about what science is. Ken Ham contended that assumptions are not a good basis for science. Bill Nye contended that the assumptions that he believes are facts of science. Bill was hypocritical in his closed-minded bigotry and pretended to be open-minded, so this part of the hifalutin' statement has no content either. The funny part is that Bill wants to make it illegal to teach Creation science, yet Bill is claiming to be open-minded to it. The specifics of what Ken would not change his mind about are left out of this statement. That is a very important issue. Ken will not change his mind about the Bible being the word of God that is without error. This fact is by Divine revelation and cannot be set aside. It would make sense for Bill to change his mind about agnosticism, naturalism, materialism, uniformitarianism, evolutionism, etc., because all of those philosophies are based on arbitrary assumptions and all have fatal flaws.

Hugh Ross: 'The unusual syntax of the sentences enumerating specific creation days. Looking at the word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text, one finds this phraseology: “and was evening and was morning day X.” … The word arrangement is clearly a departure from simple and ordinary expression. … This syntactic ambiguity does not constitute a proof. However, it does suggest that the “day” here is to be taken in some unusual manner.’

This sounds very learned, yet it is incorrect. Hugh Ross' statement is pure conjecture. His case is caught on the horns of Agrippa's trilemma.