How do you judge an argument without knowing all the facts? Try applying logic. (Chapter 14 of Thank You for Arguing can help you.)
Take this argument: Bill Nye the Science guy recently debated creationist Ken Ham. BuzzFeed asked some of the attending creationists to write notes to the other side. I'll deal with the logic one at a time, keeping the original spelling intact for the sake of verisimilitude.
Are you scared of a divine creator?
Ad hominem, an attack on the opponent's character. Being scared of a divine creator is practically recommended in the Bible. Besides, many believers in a divine creator study actual science.
Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings...Adam created as an adult?
Trees created with rings? Um, sure. That's not illogical per se. But the argument is a Straw Man, which sets up a weak version of an opposing point in order to shoot it down. You could also call this fallacy a Red Herring, which distracts the audience to make it forget what the main issue is about. The debate isn't over the logic of creationism; it's over the science.
Does not the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove evolution?
Fallacy of definition, also known as a misapplied axiom. Newton's Second Law says that entropy won't decrease in an isolated system. Since the Earth isn't an isolated system, the definition doesn't apply. You could also call false analogy on this argument, since evolution and entropy in physics are related only in a metaphorical sense.
How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?
False choice! This woman is assuming that evolutionists must not believe in a god; or, rather, in her capital-G God.
If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk such theories?
Red herring again. Weren't we talking about evolution vs. creationism? And, if you got past the ninth grade, presumably you heard of quantum physics, which don't "debunk" Newton but, you know, layer a different set of physical laws that apply to that non-isolated system we call the universe. Here we have a fallacy called many questions, a shotgun marriage of assumptions.
What about noetics?
What about them? Are you talking about neoplatonism, which in extreme versions argues that everything (or nothing) is in our heads? This goes beyond the red herring to what I call "Squirrel!" (See the movie "Up".)
Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
You could call "objective meaning" an oxymoron or a paradox since most definitions of meaning are subjective. But you could also call this fallacy wishful thinking or the necessity fallacy. We need meaning, and creationism provides that better than evolution. Therefore, creationism must be true. Many top physicists commit this fallacy, so don't feel bad.
If God did not create everything, how did the single-celled organism originate? By chance?
Rhetorical question, though not a bad one. Scientists believe that the first single-celled organism was created from carbon-based soup and some, um, energy. (Hey, I'm a rhetorician, not a biologist.) The fact that it happened at a particular time could be chance, could be God, take your pick. In any case we have another red herring. God's creation of the first single-celled organism would not disprove evolution. And, hey, creationists: please stop assuming scientists are godless. Some are, some aren't.
I believe in the Big Bang Theory...God said BANG! and it happened!
Not sure which translation of the Jewish Scripture has God saying "Bang," but I'd like a copy. Many questions again. The debate is over evolution, people! Though I'm sensing that the disbelief here is over science in general. Is God also preventing climate change and vaccinations?
Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists/non-God-believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the idea of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?
Many, many questions. The fallacy of association is certainly going on here, lumping together groups of people who may not share the same beliefs. And, dude, your science teacher with the deely-boppers coming out of her head? That was just Halloween, man!
There is no inbetween...the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for "official proof."
Here we have an interesting syntactical fallacy, lack of antecedent. The "only one" implies that only one pre-human has been found, but the pronoun allows us to make all kinds of wild assumptions. Actually, numerous pre-humans have been found. As for "official proof," that's a false definition. There are no "officials," only scientists. And a single bone can point to a new species. Happens all the time. I do like "There is no inbetween." Nice song lyric.
Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
Here we have the fallacy of...I have no idea what you're talking about. Rocks? Kafka?
If evolution is a theory (like creationism) or the Bible why then is Evolution taught as fact.
Definition fallacy again. Was science even taught in your school? A scientific theory is not the same as a Sherlock theory or a Moses and the Burning Bush Theory. (Wait. That's not a theory at all. Nor is the Bible a "theory." The Bible is a sacred text or a work of literature, depending on your point of view.) A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of repeatedly confirmed facts. It is not a guess, or a whodunit or a wish or a prayer. It's an explanation of facts based on observation or repeatable experimental data. Look it up. Please, please look up "scientific theory."
Because science by definition is a "theory"--not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
Ah, the version of the definition fallacy that's closely related to the missing antecedent. "By definition"? Whose definition? Your definition is the exact opposite of science. Oh, please, woman holding the note, please tell me that you don't have offspring or that they'll run for Congress someday.
What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?
Red herring. Evolutionary theory does not depend on "increasing information." On the other hand, if you count every new species or mutation as a recombination of data--and you should--then genetic information increases all the time. And the mechanism is evolution. There's an interesting rhetorical tactic in this question, by the way: skotison, which is Greek for "darken it." Fancy language and syntax makes the writer sound intelligent while obscuring her point.
What purpose do you think we are here for if you do not believe in Salvation?
Red Herring. Squirrels all over the place. Also a weird kind of tribal thinking. If you believe in evolution, you're not one of us. If you're not one of us, then you must not believe in salvation. If you don't believe in salvation, you should be burned at the...I mean, your life has no purpose.
Why have we found only one "Lucy," when we have found more than 1 of everything else?
Hey, how about buying an updated textbook and reading about all the discoveries made since 1974? In any case, this argument constitutes the ignorance as proof fallacy. The lack of evidence is proof it doesn't exist.
Can you believe in the "Big Bang" without faith?
Rhetorical question. Yes. I would guess that most atheists believe in the Big Bang. Does that answer your rhetorical question? (I'm asking that rhetorically.)
How can you look at the world and not believe someone Created/Thought of it? It's Amazing!
Yes, it is! But awesomeness is proof only of your emotion. This is called the pathetic fallacy, from the Greek pathos, meaning "emotion." Nonetheless, many evolutionary scientists have that same feeling of awesomeness, and it makes many of them believe in a god. Evolution is amazing, too!
Relating to the Big Bang Theory...Where did that exploding star come from?
Current Big Bang theory doesn't posit an exploding star but rather a tiny bit of matter tunneling through...again, I'm not a scientist. But there's a fallacy of definition here. Before you challenge a theory, make sure you know what the theory is. And where does that bit o' matter come from? Read Jim Holt's great book, Why Does the World Exist? You won't get an answer, but he offers a great many very cool guesses.
If we come from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?
Many questions again. We didn't come from monkeys. And if we did come from monkeys, that wouldn't preclude the continuing existence of monkeys. A mama monkey could just possibly produce monkey descendants and freakish, naked, giant ape descendants who believe in creationism. Makes me shudder to think about it.