What type of fallacies do you detect?
In this picture there are many fallacies I detected, some more apparent than others. The first being the “Red Herring” witch states the claim provides unrelated and misleading support for said claim. Being a circular reasoning argument it easy to see why this fallacy fits. I’ve seen this type of logic first hand, were I could propose a fact from a creditable source and another person retorts with a wild claim like “Because GOD said so/did it.” Not backing said claim with proof (Using this circular reasoning as a defense.)
One other type of fallacy I can see that fits this criteria is the “Stacked Evidence” witch represents only one side of an issue not acknowledging the other side. I see this fallacy to fit this example because, when arguing with a pro-monotheist person it’s hard to even propose any other way of thinking because it goes against their way of life, and they don’t want to hear anything to penetrate their own outlook on life.

What, specifically, makes them flawed or faulty?
In my own option I believe that reading a book that’s been rewritten multiple times down past many years, and the person can pick and choose what they want follow and practice is dumb-founding to me. To think that praying to an invisible man will make your life better is stupid. (In my opinion.)

In what ways do these changes make the argument stronger?
One major way people can change this way of think is to INFORM people to the facts of how we came into existences “The Theory of Evolution” witch makes since to me, and to not say that God did it. People should be asking as many questions as possible to find the answers to life’s hardest questions. Not to have these controversial topic and have a 10 sec talk to say the God did it. It makes no since and, it ridiculous. As we went over in class one of the major components in claims are