You DO know how google works, right?
I THINK that YOU think that if Rational Wiki shows up first, that the term is limited to that site, and doesn’t exist elsewhere.
In fact, Google sorts sites by the number of sites that link TO, for example, rational wiki. Meaning all sorts of threads and discussions online contain at least one person suggesting that Rational Wiki is the best place to learn about the fallacy someone else just committed. ‘Youre’ not on shaky ground. Your step 2 is backwards.
And if your logic sucks, it doesn’t matter who pointed it out. Well, a little. All the idiots that agree with you won’t examine your claims critically. Someone who disagrees with you would be more likely to actually analyze your claim. And note a fallacy. Your step 1 is backwards, too.
“Step 1: Has the ''fallacy'' been outlined by an critic? Add a point.
Step 2: Google the ''fallacy''. Is it a real fallacy? Add a point.
Step 3: Did any creationists approve of your statement without noting any fallacy? Add a point.
Step 4: Did you copy the ‘fallacious’ statement from Hovind, Strobel, Comfort, or Ham? Add two points.
…and so on, and finally “If you have scored more than five points, apologize, you shameful idiot.
