I'd have had something in mind mind thanks to a comment made by another user, doubtig thomas, so what I would wish to decibel is what I call the hovind fallacy.
This is a logical fallacy where one continues to make the same assertion unchanged even when that has demonstarted to be false. Ex Timothy says all leaves turn red in the fall, sally then finds a leaf that turned brown instead and and says "this one turned brown". Timothy then says to lisa later "all leaves turn red in fall"
This is a falllacy where one continues to use a argument even after that argument has been credibly proven false, which I propose to name after one kent hovind for his use of this fallacy.
This is a logical fallacy where one continues to make the same assertion unchanged even when that has demonstarted to be false. Ex Timothy says all leaves turn red in the fall, sally then finds a leaf that turned brown instead and and says "this one turned brown". Timothy then says to lisa later "all leaves turn red in fall"
This is a falllacy where one continues to use a argument even after that argument has been credibly proven false, which I propose to name after one kent hovind for his use of this fallacy.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
