Logical Fallacy of Bluffing / Appeal to False Bravado / False Show of Confidence / Turning Up the Rhetoric / Bluster

The logical fallacy of bluffing / appeal to false bravado / false show of confidence / turning up the rhetoric / bluster occurs when a theatrical false show of confidence is used as proof for a conclusion rather than real evidence and rational thought.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Bluffing / Appeal to False Bravado / False Show of Confidence / Turning Up the Rhetoric / Bluster

Bill Nye:"Tiktaalik, this fish-lizard guy. And they found several specimens. It wasn't one individual. In other words, they made a prediction that this animal would be found and it was found. So far, Ken Ham, and his worldview, the Ken Ham creation model, does not have this capability. It cannot make predictions and show results."

This is a perfect example of shoehorning the evidence to fit the predication. What is the prediction? That intermediate forms will be found between kinds of living things (cat kind, dog/wolf kind, etc.) The search has been constant since Darwin. There should be millions of these intermediate forms in the fossil record, not just tons of fossils that show interesting variations within existing kinds. The prediction was that a missing link to fill in a gap in the story of molecules-to-man, however, calling this a missing link would be a bare assertion, an unfounded notion. It is just like so many other so-called predictions that didn't pan out but were publicized as victories (declaring victory) anyway. Tiktaalik has already been debunked. Using such a counterfactual tale as this as a premise to support molecules-to-man would be a hysteron proteron fallacy. So Bill resorts to false bravado/bluffing. Just pump it up and step up the rhetoric. One of the ways that Bil does this is to make a rather strange claim, strange in the light of the fact that Ken Ham actually showed him a slide of 20 predictions in his opening talk which amounts to denialism. Bill made a great show of superiority, give a whole series of bogus claims of evolutionistic "predictions" that are to verbose to list here. That is false bravado instead of proof. If someone puts on an air of self-confidence, people are much more likely to believe what is said. However, a show is not proof of anything. It has no impact on the reality that the so-called predictions for evolution are mere confirmation bias.

Ricard Dawkins, when asked why he doesn't attack Allah: "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about." (Note how sheepish Richard is when faced with a culture that is more likely to respond with violence against him.) "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Yet, Richard exhibits great false bravado and irrational self-confidence when making unsupported assertions, actually, insane comments, against the God Who created all things and Who sent His Son to die for Richard and everyone else.