A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

Understanding logical fallacies is great, but of little use in the creationist vs. scientist debate.The reason for this is creationists' invariable use of faulty or erroneous data, or sheer speculation, as if it were fact--all the while ignoring anything that conflicts with their beliefs.Here is a link to a typical creationist article, this one on C14 dating (pdf format): Problems with Carbon DatingRegarding C14 dating, this article makes about every mistake possible, and introduces such imaginary factors as a water canopy, huge changes in cosmic radiation, and a young earth. It is very typical of what passes for creation "science."Given all of this, does anyone really care if their logic is properly used?It is garbage in, garbage out whether the logic is proper or not.

Your comment "that other authorities disagree with the cited" is troublesome.This brings to mind the creationist's "teach the controversy" nonsense from a few years ago. There was no controversy within science on the particular topics, so creationists drummed up their own controversies and then demanded that schools "teach both sides."This was one of the most dishonest campaigns I've seen from an inherently dishonest bunch.I don't know which logical fallacy this falls under, if it is a logical fallacy at all.It could be just old-fashioned lying.

I think I understand the appeal to authority concept, and its uses and abuses.But I don't think this thread exists in a vacuum; logical fallacies are a fine theoretical study on the one hand, but the abuses we see from creationists can't be ignored, and don't always fall into pure "logical fallacy" categories.I pointed out one problem way upthread, but there were no responses. That problem was the tendency of creationists to use all manner of flawed data in support of their arguments, and to ignore the massive amounts of data that refutes those arguments. This renders logic as rather unimportant, as if you bring garbage arguments into a perfect logical structure you still get garbage out the other side. Is this a logical fallacy, or is it just plain lying?In this most recent post I questioned the "appeal to authority" by giving an example whereby creationists drummed up their own "authorities" to create an artificial controversy, then cried "teach both sides." This is certainly a dishonest approach, and probably a flawed "appeal to authority," but creationists certainly won't admit that!Logic is a fine thing, and logical fallacies are fine things to recognize, but from the two examples I have given there are more fundamental problems with creationists' methods and thinking than failure to follow pure logic.