Misrepresenting the Facts Fallacy

Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Misrepresentation of facts is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma.

The Misrepresenting Fallacy Misrepresenting the Facts: occurs when a claim is supported by a false premise where the premise is based incorrect information. It is a fallacy of misrepresentation. The straw man fallacy is also a fallacy of misrepresentation, but it misrepresents what someone else has said or what they stand for. The misrepresentation of facts fallacy affects the premises because the facts the are behind the premises are misrepresented. All misrepresenting the facts fallacies are counterfactual fallacies, but some counterfactual fallacies affect the premises and some counterfactual fallacies are given without any premises.

Examples of Misrepresenting the Facts Fallacy

Bill Nye arguing against Creation science: "So it’s reasonable to me that instead of lions being vegetarians on the Ark, lions are lions, and the information that you use to create your worldview is not consistent with what I as a reasonable man would expect."

There are unsupported assertions based on unwarranted extrapolation and presupposed assumptions in this statement.

The fact that is misrepresented is in this part of the statement: ". . . the information that you use to create your worldview is not consistent with what I as a reasonable man would expect." 

The fact that is misrepresented is that the Bible is not consistent with what a reasonable man would expect. There is also a second misrepresented fact in that Bill, as an unreasonable and dogmatic man misrepresents himself as a reasonable man. A reasonable man would not use fallacies. And a reasonable man would not commit the reasonable man fallacy. What Bill would expect is based on his own worldview. His own inner fake-reality. A reasonable man would realize this and not trust his own thoughts so much without examining the evidence objectively. Bill is being unreasonable in many way as the following shows.

There was one kind of cat on the Ark. It might have been a lion. What the cat on the Ark was like, we don't know. By presupposing a lion, Bill is committing a fallacy. OK. Let's imagine for a moment that it was a lion.

So let’s assume, just for a moment, that a 21^st Century lion was on the Ark. Even if that were true, which is unlikely, Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of unwarranted extrapolation. This is not what a reasonable man would do. We have no idea what these particular cats were like before the Flood or on the Ark. They would probably have been young adults, but we don't know. We have no idea the extent to which God intervened to keep the animals in control. Perhaps only some animals had fallen to the point of being carnivores at that time, but we don’t know. We have no idea of the design of the cages that Noah may have built.

We do know that God gave the design for the Ark and that God did it in such a way that it would work. We know this by revelation. Bible skeptics tend to use a mindset that says, "If I can make any assumptions that would make something in the Bible impossible, that proves that the Bible has an error." That is irrational thinking.

When Bill uses the word, “and,” he is using it to connect two thoughts, implying that they make sense together. They don’t make sense together. Here is the logic:

The cat kind on the Ark consisted of lions. (unsupported assertion by innuendo).

These lions on the Ark were necessarily carnivores because all animals with sharp teeth are always carnivores. (assertion contrary to fact).

"and"

A reasonable man would not expect that the lions could be on the Ark with the other animals.

What if they weren't lions? What if they weren't carniverous? What if they were in cages?

When Bill says that a reasonable man would not expect what the Bible says, he is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. Just claiming to be the reasonable one and claiming that Ken Ham is not reasonable doesn't make it so. In fact, it's a bit childish. This is the same as saying, "I, Bill Nye, am a reasonable man because I say that I am; therefore, believe me. And anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable; therefore, don't believe them."

and (package deal fallacy)

a sane person would not believe the Bible (assertion contrary to fact).

Bill Nye is using innuendo to cover a fallacy of unsupported assertion. Bill Nye is assuming that this is really about a comparison of Ken Ham's worldview versus Bill Nye's worldview--except that Bill thinks that his own worldview is real reality and not a worldview/fake-reality at all.

Everyone has a worldview, a fake-reality. We all have the problem that our fake-reality seems more real to us than real reality. However,the comparison is between Bill Nye's fake-reality and what God is revealing by Divine revelation.

And, the fact is that the physical evidence supports Creation and the Flood much better than it supports the notion that everything made itself. Bill Nye's fake-reality has to explain away several scientific laws. The revelation that God gives has no such problems. There is nothing that is observed scientifically that in any way conflicts with a young Earth, Creation, and the Flood.

Bill Nye arguing against Creation science: "For us, in the scientific community, I remind you, that when we find an idea that’s not tenable, that doesn’t work, that doesn’t fly, that doesn’t hold water, whatever idiom you’d like to embrace, we throw it away. We’re delighted."

While Bill's statement about throwing away ideas taht are not tenable may hold for many things, the discussion is about the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story, as story that is propped up by many fallacies and that survives by intimidation and message control. Bill's performance during the debate is testimony to closed-mindedness. However, the fact is that anyone who challenges this sacred cow of the elite of the "scientific community," will find himself or herself ostracized and fighting to keep his or her job. Bill is totally misrepresting the facts.