Apologetics Live with Jason Lisle

This is Apologetics Live! To answer your questions, your host of Striving for Eternity, Andrew Rappaport!

Show Schedule, Upcoming Debates, and Today’s Guest

All right, we are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your questions and challenges. Now, folks, to remind you again that I see in the chat some folks are asking, where's Matt Slick? As I said on a previous show, he will be out at least until the end of this year.

He's moving next month. There's going to take time to move. There's going to take time to unpack. But we have a lot of special guest apologists coming in, and we will have some debates as well. So, tonight we have Dr. Jason Lyle, and we're going to be talking about his background as astrophysicist.

He's an astrophysicist, I should say, and we'll be talking about things like that, creation science. But next week, we will have a debate between a Lutheran and a Baptist on the topic of baptism. The week after that, we'll be having, we're probably going to review a debate that Eli had done on the Gospel Truth podcast show.

And then after that, I will be at Truth Matters Conference in California. We'll take that week off. But when we return, we're going to do a review, a debate review of my debate last night from the Gospel Truth.

Well, can we actually say it was a debate? For those of you who watched it, you know you really couldn't say it was a debate because the guy defeated his argument in his three-minute opening. He had ten minutes.

He did three. He really didn't seem to want to do any cross-examination because he used it just as rebuttal. I think he was actually, my theory is he said he was a gamer. I think he was playing games during the debate because he seemed like he really didn't want to be there.

He was disinterested. You know, he didn't want to ask questions. He wanted more of a monologue. I don't know if he really wanted to be there, but this is Apologetics Live. It is a ministry of striving for eternity.

The podcast version is heard on the Christian Podcast Community and you can find all of our podcasts at christianpodcastcommunity .org. If you're wanting to find out, we have a bunch of podcasts. Mine that I have, this is one of them.

The others are Andrew Rapport's Rapp Report. That is a weekly episode that we do where it's about an hour long. But if you like the shorter things, Monday through Friday, Andrew Rapport's Daily Rapp Report.

What I've been doing is giving you really short answers, two-minute answers, actually less, about a minute and 45 seconds to challenges that we get. I'll give you a hint. The one we just did was, does God tempt us to sin?

That was today's. And tomorrow's will be, does God still speak to us today? So we put those out Monday through Friday, quick, just so you have some of these challenges that people sometimes give. And so they are available to you.

So those are some of the podcasts out there. And I want to bring in now Dr. Jason Lyle. One of the things, I always love to tell the story, Jason, of you and I on the boardwalk with some guy who just took about over an hour and a half of this pastor's time, this military guy, and he basically walked over to this conversation and said, you know, what's your argument?

What's your position? And he basically said his conclusion was there are no smart, there's no intelligent Christians. And I ended up asking him, like, what would count as intelligence? And he says, you show me someone that has a Ph .D. and is a Christian.

I said, OK, what if he had a Ph .D. in like astrophysicists? Like, you know, would that count if he was, you know, if he had a degree in astronomy and physics? And he was like, such a thing doesn't exist.

You were like sitting on the bench. I'm like, Jason, can you come here for a second? Like, meet Dr. Jason Lyle, Ph .D. astrophysicist. And the guy just walked away from you, never said a word. And you were like, what did I say?

Your presence was enough to chase him away.

I do have that effect on people.

But you used to work for, well, company, you worked for Answers in Genesis, a very well-known creation science ministry. Then you moved over to more of a research type of ministry, ICR, Institute of Creation Research, which they're more of doing more research stuff.

I should note for folks that if they've ever been to the Creation Museum and gone in the planetarium, you had a little something to do with that. You actually put the, I think, both the presentations together, right?

Well, I have several now. The original three or four presentations, I wrote those. Yeah.

Yeah. So and then you went over to ICR. And then recently you've gone out on your own and you're with a ministry that you've created and you speak for, Biblical Science Institute. So real quick for folks, as we wait for folks to come in, I should announce that if you want to join the discussion, just go to ApologeticsLive .com.

The links to watch and join are right there. Tell us about Biblical Science Institute, why you started this, what you're doing with it and what you hope to see God do with this ministry.

Well, it is a Christian ministry. It's designed to show people that the Bible is true from the beginning and with a special emphasis on science. I am a scientist. And by the grace of God, he's selected me to defend the Bible.

I enjoy doing that. I enjoy showing people how science aligns with scripture. There's a common misconception that to be a Christian is to be anti-scientific, to be anti-intellectual. And really the purpose of this organization is to show people that, in fact, it really is the opposite.

That's not to say that there aren't any intellectuals who are not Christians. But I do want to show people that it is intellectually inconsistent to not be a Christian. If you're going to be fully consistently rational, if you're going to make sense of science and the scientific method, you really have to be a consistent Christian in order for that to make sense.

And I also have a special appreciation for the defense of Genesis in particular, it being foundational to the Christian faith in terms of major Christian doctrines having their origin, their foundation in Genesis.

And so it's an educational science, educational Christian ministry, basically.

Right. And so some of the stuff I have, some of you, I don't have the DVD I wanted to talk about here. The most recent one, and I forget the name of it, the one on fractals. It's called The Secret Code of Creation.

The Secret Code of Creation. Folks, this is you got to go to BiblicalScienceInstitute .com right now and get that one. That is so you go so folks know you just go into they have shop and just got to go into the shop.

I should have done that. I would have found the name because there's well, there's several products out here. But get get the one, the Secret Code of Creation. All right. It's on page two there. Nice red background.

That is like if you want to just be wowed about like how cool God is, like how awesome God is. That's what I mean. Like this is the one thing you and I were sitting in Idaho once and you were you were you were saying like you were talking about like dentists and different professions where when they get they travel, it's like they have people come up and ask them things that are kind of practical.

But you have a field that just sits young where you're just constantly going, wow, God is awesome. So you got some DVDs that I have here understanding Genesis.

So talk about that one real quick. That's alluding back to what I mentioned previously, the fact that Christian doctrines are rooted in Genesis. A lot of Christians think, well, it doesn't really matter what you believe about Genesis.

Just trust in Jesus. And of course, Jesus is the the center of our faith. There's no doubt about that. But Jesus is also the creator. And he created the universe into existence. And so those Christian doctrines go back to Genesis.

Yeah, we believe that that human life is valuable. But why is that? Well, it goes back to the Genesis theme that the human beings are made in the image of God. We're different from animals. We're classified as a mammal.

I understand that. But we're different in terms of we have a spirit. We're made in God's image. The animals are not. We've been given dominion over the animals. All these Christian concepts go back to the literal history recorded in Genesis.

That's really what that DVD is all about.

One that all the kids love, especially?

Dinosaurs. That's just fun. And it's just something that, you know, who doesn't love dinosaurs, especially if you're a young youngster? I mean, man, I loved dinosaurs when I was young and I never really got over that.

I still think they're incredibly cool. For me, it was very exciting once I realized how dinosaurs make sense in light of the biblical history. And that was just cool. It was profound to me. And I enjoy sharing that.

That DVD would be suitable for youngsters, but for adults as well. I try to reach a wide range of people if I can.

All right. And then we have Astronomy Reveals Creation.

That, of course, is my specialty field. I am an astrophysicist. And so it's my joy to share with people how the universe declares God's glory. And how the universe and the science of astronomy is not really consistent with the prevailing secular view of the Big Bang and the billions of years and so on.

So it shows people that the science actually confirms biblical creation in the realm of astronomy.

And actually, I should have brought the books out. You have a couple of books, Taking Back Astronomy. And the other interesting one to encourage people with it is The Stargazer's Guide to the Night Sky.

Describe that.

Yeah. Well, Taking Back Astronomy, that's the more apologetic of the two. That actually goes along with that DVD. And so it's showing people how the universe declares God's glory. How it's inconsistent with the billions of years.

How the science lines up with Genesis. And then Stargazer's Guide. That's a little different. That one I wrote just to help people enjoy the night sky. Because the universe does declare God's glory. And I thought, you know, with this second book, I don't need to go out and explicitly point that out.

What I need to do is show people how to enjoy the night sky better. So if you want to know when the next meteor shower is, it's in there. If you want to know how to find Saturn, it's in there. If you want to know, you say, well, I'm thinking about getting a telescope.

What are the considerations? It's all in there. Say, I'm never going to get a telescope. I just want to know what I can see naked eye or with binoculars. It's in there. So it's just designed to show people how to enjoy the night sky from a Christian perspective.

And it's not hitting you over the head with apologetics like most of my sources do. But it's just helping you enjoy the night sky. And there is a gospel message in the back.

Objects in Space, Comets, and the Stability of Creation

And I do want to talk about, you know, actually we'll do that before we get to the next DVD. There's been some recent things in the news about some objects heading our way and into our solar system. Should we be worried?

God's designed a very stable universe. And, of course, he's promised us that until Judgment Day, the seed time and harvest will continue, according to Genesis 822. So the Earth's stable, which, by the way, eliminates any catastrophic global warming or anything like that, or global cooling for that matter.

We have a promise from God that won't happen until Judgment Day, and then nothing can prevent that one. But, no, there are objects that are in our solar system. There are Earth-crossing asteroids, and people get very concerned about those.

We can calculate centuries in advance where those are going to be with a fair degree of precision, and none are scheduled to hit the Earth. What was really cool is it was about, well, first of all, let me back up a little bit.

About a year, was it a year or two ago, we had an object enter our solar system that is basically, it's an asteroid that does not belong to our solar system. It's just passing by, as it were. And so this object came in from deep space, went around the sun, and then it went back out to deep space and over to return.

Really fascinating. You know, also, it's unbelievably long. It was like the length compared to the width was like 7 to 1 or something. It was incredibly, it was like a rod, basically. And that was fascinating because we had never seen an interstellar asteroid before.

All the other asteroids orbit the sun, and they continue to orbit. This thing came in from deep space, got bent by the sun's gravity, and back out. And then just like a week or two ago, they discovered the first interstellar comet, a comet that's from deep space.

It doesn't circle the sun. It's coming in from deep space. It's going to whiplash. It's never going to get real close to the sun. It gets about as close as Mars is. It's going to whiplash back out into deep space, and we'll never see it again.

Just cool because it's novel. And I like stuff like that in astronomy. It's like, you know, we've got, there are thousands of asteroids that orbit the sun. They're fun to look at, and there are a lot of comets.

I've seen a lot of comets, but I like stuff that's unique, stuff that we've never seen before. And so an interstellar comet, how cool is that? It's not going to get very bright. It's going to get up to about magnitude 15, which is about the brightness of the dwarf planet Pluto.

So unless you have a very powerful telescope, you're probably not going to see it. But it's just neat. It's one of these little surprises that the Lord sends us. Who would have thought of an interstellar comet?

Very neat. And comets can last millions and billions of years, right?

Well, they can. Actually, the ironic thing is only if they were interstellar could they do that. So this is perhaps the one comet that could last that long because it's been in deep space since creation, presumably.

But the comets that orbit the sun, they can't last millions or billions of years. That's well known. And the reason for that is because when comets come close to the sun, comets are made of ice. And so that icy material is vaporized away from the surface.

And that's actually what forms a comet's tail. That's material being blasted away from the nucleus of the comet by solar heat and radiation, solar wind carrying it away. So every time you see a comet, it's getting smaller.

It's losing mass. And we can do the math. We can measure the rate at which the material is being depleted. We know the amount of material that's in a comet. They're not very big. They're a few miles across.

I guess it's big for an ice ball, but it's not very big compared to a planet. And so we can do the math. A typical comet can last something like 100 ,000 years. It depends on the orbital characteristics.

It's not millions of years, let alone billions. And so that's somewhat of a problem for the secular view because the comets are supposed to have formed when the solar system did. In the secular view, that's 4 .5 billion years ago.

But they can't last that long. And that's why my secular colleagues have invented things like the Oort cloud to supply long-period comets. And then they claim the Kuiper belt supports, regenerates short-period comets.

But we don't really have any evidence for an Oort cloud. And there's no evidence that the Kuiper belt, that there's a genuine Kuiper belt with trillions of comet-sized objects waiting to fall into the solar system.

So those are both examples of rescuing devices that are designed to protect the worldview from what is apparently evidence to the contrary.

Are you saying that the atheists need to rely on facts like they demand of us? I thought they just make claims, and they don't need to actually support an Oort cloud.

Well, in their view, the support is we still have comets. So there must be an Oort cloud, right? It's a little bit of circular reasoning. But we all have a worldview. We all have a way of looking at the world.

And when evidence is presented that is contrary to that worldview or seems contrary to that worldview, we have the tendency to fill in, to produce conjectures that will explain, that will account for that evidence within the worldview.

So I don't really blame my secular colleagues for inventing an Oort cloud that's consistent with their belief in billions of years and their observation that we have comets that can't last that long. They need that.

There's no evidence for one, though. And so I think the evidence is just very consistent with the biblical timescale of thousands of years.

Well, I mean, the nice thing about saying that there could be an Oort cloud is the fact that the fact that we haven't found it doesn't mean it's not out there yet is just the answer, right?

The best rescuing devices can't be proved or disproved. That's what makes them good. Effective, I should say. They're not good in a scientific sense. In science, we want things that are falsifiable. Right now, the Oort cloud really isn't.

So it's a conjecture at this point. It's not something that falls into the category of science. It's an untested conjecture. But I can't disprove it because how do you disprove the existence of something that's undetectable, something that's out beyond the range at which we can detect comet-sized objects?

So it is possible. But I do have to point out there's no evidence for it at present.

The Distant Starlight Problem and the Conventionality Thesis

Yeah. And you actually have something as well when we come to your view on the starlight issue, which is a big issue for a lot of people. And it's one that comes up often. We get challenged with it. But, you know, how could the starlight get here if we have a young age to the universe?

And forgetting the fact that they have, like, a horizon problem and things like that. But the nice thing of your conclusion, and, you know, I want you to first explain what are the issues with the starlight problem?

What are the problems that the atheists have? Then explain kind of your view. And the beauty of your view is it's impossible to test, so that no one can ever prove you wrong on it. So that's beautiful.

Right? Because science is going to you put out a hypothesis, and they try to prove it wrong. You can't prove it wrong, you know?

It stands true, right? Well, yeah, there's a lot of misunderstanding on it. It's a hard issue, and I don't know how much time you want to spend on this because it's difficult. Space and time are not as straightforward as people think.

And that's something that Einstein discovered. And, in fact, I found this issue I haven't found a good way to explain this to laymen very succinctly. I haven't found a 30-second elevator talk that I can give to people that will explain the starlight issue.

And so what I did was I wrote a book about it that shows that if you understand the physics of Einstein, there is no starlight problem. And basically the perceived problem is that stars are so far away that even though light is very fast, the stars are so far away that the light from the most distant ones would take theoretically billions of years to get from there to here.

And we do see the stars, so obviously the light has gone from there to here, which indicates the universe is at least billions of years old. That's the thinking. Now, this doesn't apply to any of the stars you would see in the night sky.

Those are all relatively nearby. The light from those would get here within years or 10 years, 100 years, 1 ,000 years. But what about these distant galaxies that are billions of light years away? And there have been several attempts to figure that out.

But one of the assumptions that people make is that they assume that the description of now that God uses when we talk about day four is kind of the same that we would use today. It's what we call an Einstein synchrony convention.

And in that view, light takes one year to travel a distance of one light year. A light year is a distance. It sounds like a time, but it's a distance of about six trillion miles. And light takes one year to travel that distance.

That's why they give it the name light year. And the problem is that that definition is recent. Before Einstein, well before Einstein, especially before 1600, everybody used a very different definition for what now means when you're talking about space.

People use what you might call a visual synchrony convention, whereby something happens when you see it. See, and so if a star explodes, if you see a star explode and you ask when did that happen, before the 1600s, people would say, well, it's happening now because I can see it now.

It wasn't until the time of Einstein that people consistently began using an Einstein synchrony convention, whereby they subtract off what they think is the light travel time from that object to the earth.

And that could be thousands of years to billions of years depending on how far away the object is. And so what I like to point out to folks is that when you understand something about the physics of Einstein, light can actually travel from those distant galaxies to earth in no time at all because of the way now is defined in space.

And perhaps the best analogy I can think of is if you were to leave, say, New Jersey and travel out here to Colorado, if you were to leave at 4 o 'clock, you could arrive in Colorado at around 4 o 'clock depending on the flight.

And I've very nearly done that on some flights. Not only works if you're going east to west, but that's because of the way time zones are structured on the earth. And that's convenient because we like to have noon where the sun is at the highest point in the sky or around there.

You can do that in space, too. And so light can leave the star on day four and arrive on earth on day four in no time at all. It's not a problem. And actually that principle, it's called the conventionality thesis.

And it's something that is actually really well established in the scientific technical literature. Over the last hundred years, people have written, scientists, PhD physicists have written about the conventionality thesis.

Now, not everyone has agreed with it, but some people have tried to refute it. And then in the next issue of the journal, somebody will point out that their refutation was wrong. And so nobody's been able to disprove the conventionality thesis.

So there's good evidence for it. It's not just a blind conjecture. And so my position is that there is no starlight problem because the Bible is using this anisotropic synchrony convention where light takes no time at all to get from the stars to the earth.

Now, the return trip would take a long time. The light hasn't gone out to the galaxy yet. That's my position. And my claim that the Bible is using this convention, that is falsifiable. You could make an argument that it's not.

So people sometimes confuse the convention with the model. A convention is not falsifiable. That's the nature of a convention, right? Somebody says a table is three feet long. Somebody else says, no, it's one yard long.

Well, who's right? Well, they're both right. Yards versus feet. It's not a question of right versus wrong. It's a question of which one you want to choose. Those are examples of a convention. They're a convention of measuring length.

The one-way speed of light is like that. You get to take your pick. But then if I make the claim that the Bible is using a particular convention, that's falsifiable because somebody could make an argument that it's not.

If somebody says Noah's Ark is actually not 300 cubits long, it's actually 300 feet long, well, that's wrong. And you can demonstrate that, you see. So my model is that God created the entire universe or God created the luminaries of the universe on day four of the creation week and that he's using the anisotropic sanctuary convention, which all ancient cultures did until the 1600s and more likely the 20th century.

Yeah. And I hope you see some of the comments that are coming in is someone just said, just let this guy keep talking. He's very interesting. So, you know, one of the things when we talk about the, you know, starlight and things like that, you know, I did actually do what you had said.

I flew from the Philippines to the United States. And when I went to the Philippines, I lost an entire day. I mean, I took off. I think it was like 11 o 'clock and I landed at 11 o 'clock, but I lost the entire day.

But coming back, I took off like I think it was four and I landed at four. It was just like it was it was strange to get, you know, to adjust to that.

And you do the same thing with light. Light can leave a star on day four, reach Earth on day four. But if you shine a beam back, it'll take a long time to get there. It's like going the other way. You see, the round trip speed of light, that's my God.

You can't change that. Speed of light in a vacuum. The round trip speed of light in a vacuum. But the one way speed we get to define and we define it conveniently, just like we define time zones on the Earth, such that when you fly from east to west, you seem to arrive at the same time you left.

It's the same way with light. It's similar.

And here's the book you were referring to on the physics of Einstein. Yeah. So for folks that's also available at his store. Am I doing a sales pitch for you? Thank you. One last one, because this is going to be the proof, the ultimate proof of creation, which you have a book on on this.

And I want to spend a little bit of time talking about this. You are not only do you do a lot with dealing with stars, which are fascinated and fascinating. And yes, you talk about dinosaurs, which are cool, too.

But I think one of the better things that you do is also your area in logic. And you have a recent actually like really, I guess, homeschooling books for them. So let's talk about your books and then let's get into a discussion of logic.

And why is it important for a Christian?

Well, logic is basically the principles of correct reasoning. And well, I mean, just practicality aside, it's better to reason properly. Obviously, if you're thinking is wrong, your actions tend to follow your thoughts.

Your actions are going to tend to turn out not so good. I don't have to give too many examples of that. I think it's pretty obvious. If you're thinking is right, life's going to get better for you. As a Christian, we're commanded to think rightly.

And so that's a very good reason to study logic. And logic is really the study of, again, correct thinking. And then, of course, people are going to ask, but who decides what correct thinking is? Well, I would say God defines what correct thinking is.

God's mind controls the universe. And so if you want to succeed in this universe, learn to think the way God does. Now, obviously, we can't think infinitely like God does, but we can think in a way that's consistent with his nature.

And that's something we're commanded to do in Scripture. In Ephesians 5, we're commanded to emulate God, to emulate his character. In Isaiah 55, it's a great chapter. God tells us that the problem with the wicked is that he's not thinking like God.

He's not acting like God. So God says you need to turn around. You need to change your thoughts and you need to change your ways because my ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts.

That's the problem. And so we're commanded to think, to repent, and start thinking the way God does, which is to say we're to think logically. And, of course, that's what logic is all about. And so if you think about it, even the specific laws of logic that we use, they stem from the nature of God.

They stem from the mind of God. We have the law of non-contradiction, which is you can't have A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. So if I said my car is in the parking lot and it's not the case that my car is in the parking lot, you would know that that is false.

A statement can't be true along with its contradiction. And that stems from the nature of God because God cannot deny himself, the Bible says. If we are faithless, he remains faithful for he cannot deny himself.

And so that internal consistency that is part of God's character is manifested in correct thinking. When you think rightly, don't contradict yourself because God doesn't. And that's why laws of logic don't change with time because they're rooted in the nature of God.

God doesn't change with time. Laws of logic apply everywhere in the universe because God is sovereign over the entire universe. His thinking is applicable everywhere. Laws of logic are exceptionalist because God is sovereign over everything.

There's nothing that's outside of his control and so on. And so we can make sense of laws of logic and their properties in the Christian worldview. And I've written a number of books that deal with that topic, but the one that's most recent, I actually wrote an introduction to informal logic that's designed to be used as a homeschool curriculum.

I have a real heart for homeschooling. I think that's a great way to go. I think it's biblical. But at the same time, I think maybe people who say, well, you know, I don't have kids. Hey, if you want to get better at logic, pick up our curriculum.

That's what it's for. It's to help you to get better at thinking rationally, thinking logically. And there's a section then on logical fallacies. A great way to learn to think logically is to see how people don't.

And logical fallacies are basically mistakes in reasoning that people commit, and it's helpful to know that. A medical doctor knows a lot about how the human body is supposed to work, but he also knows some of the most common ways that it can go wrong.

You wouldn't want to go to a doctor that knew nothing about disease. He said, well, I know how your body's supposed to work. So it's good to study logical fallacies, too, and they tend to come up a lot of times in debates on origins, on creation versus evolution, on religion, and so on.

And so it's very helpful to know something about logic. It's honoring to God when we think rightly and when we politely correct people who are not thinking rightly. It's helpful to them, too.

Yeah, I mean, one of the things I notice a lot of times is that you have people who they know the logical fallacies by name. Right? I've noticed a lot of times they don't know the meaning of those fallacies.

You pick up, they'll be like, you know, you'll say, that's a straw man. No, actually, I accurately described your position. Or they'll be like, well, that's an ad hominem. No, I didn't attack your person at all to discredit the argument you're making.

They throw them out there, and they often don't even know the meaning of them, which is why I thought that your book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, really was great at helping people get just an introduction to logic and seeing what makes a valid argument when we make these.

Because that's the biggest thing. Even if you don't know all the fallacies, and I don't have them all memorized, but when you understand what makes valid arguments, you can sit there and go, okay, I may not know what fallacy that is, but there's a problem there.

And, frankly, the most common logical fallacies, there aren't that many, really, in terms of day-to-day fallacies people commit. So I actually wrote a follow-up book. So with The Ultimate Proof of Creation, it's not all about logic.

It's a defense of the Christian worldview. But there are two chapters in that book that discuss logic, informal logic and informal logic. And after that, I thought, you know, it would be nice to have a book that's just on logic.

And so I wrote a book called Discerning Truth. And what it does is it covers the top ten logical fallacies that people tend to commit in debates on origins. And it explains them and gives examples and shows why they're a fallacy and so on.

And so that's I mean, and you can read that book in an afternoon. It is not a I mean, it's a short book, and there's only ten fallacies. And so, frankly, if you learn, like, those ten fallacies in 90 of conversations when a fallacy comes up, it will be one of those ten.

And then there are fallacies that are increasingly obscure. And I've written on some of those too. But it is helpful to know kind of the top ten. And that's what that book's all about. And then if you want to do more, get the introduction to informal logic that we have just published.

And that's available on our website as well. And that goes through basically all the informal logical fallacies that I'm aware of. And, again, it's not that many. I haven't counted, but, you know, like 40 or something.

There's not that many, really. And then there's a handful of formal logical fallacies too. And those are a little harder to learn because formal logic, it takes a little bit. There's more steps to it.

But there's not that many. In categorical syllogisms, there are only six fallacies, six. And then in propositional logic, there are just a handful too, three or four, something like that, depending on how you count.

So it's very helpful to learn the fallacies. And I recommend that people even learn the name, at least the English name. All of them have Latin names, and that can get a little confusing. But it's helpful in a conversation to say, well, actually, you know, you're conversing with somebody, and they make a mistake in reasoning.

You say, well, actually, that's a fallacy of such and such. You've got to do it graciously, of course, but it gives a little more punch. It shows you know what you're talking about. It shows that you really do understand fallacies and can identify them.