> If this were true it would be a major scientific discovery and wouldn't be posted on the paranormal section of about.com.

From here

Normally, I would post the name of the logical fallacy and a link to where they can learn more about it, so hopefully the author and the readers can learn to avoid them in the future. But I don't have a name for this. Any suggestions?

I think it is an invalid conclusion, because it assumes every anomaly is going to be noticed the first time it occurs.

I think it is an unsafe argument because it could always be applied to any new discovery, to discount it.

[Note: Not to be interpreted as me believing lizards can live in solid rock, just me rejecting the speculation used to support the conclusion that they don't.]

I was going to post some references but don't have enough privilege

it says I'm limited to two references

@user972481 what question

@user972481 That's an annoying restriction for new users we're trying to get rid of. But you got one upvote, you should be able to add more links now

@Oddthinking I am pretty sure that is Appeal to consequences nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html

@user972481 and what references are you wanting to add?

I was going to add some about memory distortion and oddthinking just clued me in to logical fallacy as well.

or even hoaxes... the quarrymen part sounds more like a hoax than anything else

@Oddthinking It could also be an appeal to authority nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Saying that if it was true then science would have recognized it already. Since they havent it must not be true.

or just the fact that people by nature tend to tell lies ;)

That is ad hominem

and actually this is probably ad hominem against About.com's paranormal section.... Its like saying that just because Bigfoot is on the front page of the Enquirer there is no such thing as big foot.

@user972481 It is a silly restriction, to avoid spam. It doesn't work well on Skeptics.SE, even if it does on other StackExchange sites. Lightly disguise your references so the system doesn't recognise them, and someone with more rep will edit them into clickable links. Hopefully, you will get a couple of upvotes so you can continue with other edits if desired.

@user972481 I'm not buying the story, but we look for definitive answers on Skeptics.SE rather than speculation, and so I haven't posted an answer yet, because I don't know how to prove it isn't true, with evidence.

@Chad: Appeal to Consequences? I had considered that, but it didn't seem right. The author wasn't saying the consequence was bad. Just that it hadn't happened. If he was right that that was the inevitable consequence, his argument (Proof by Contradiction) would be fine.

@Chad: Appeal to authority? Where authority is "science"? Tricky. Maybe.

Agree about ad hominem part though.

@user972481 Oh right! You are the author! Sorry, didn't notice the user numbers matched...

Okay. I edited the answer with more references. Maybe that'll dispel the old "toads found living in stones" myth. :P

and I changed my username for you lol