Is this a logical fallacy?

I will leave this to someone else if they see something intelligible here that they can address. I can't.

"I will leave this to someone else if they see something intelligible here that they can address. I can't."

Everyone mark this in their calendar : Dr Bo is stumped !!

Joking :) ...but there is a fine line between the application of the rules of logic, and whether statements are worthy of the effort.

The question in the OP is a bit like :

Apples are red.
Oranges are yellow.
Therefore, fruit is insanity.

Actually, there's a guy on the web, affectionately known as Professor Bonkers. He goes under the names of Peter Berean and John M. Kinson. He's a born-again Christian, and has his very own highly customised version of sentential logic. He has books on Amazon too.

I think OP means that:

- person 1 argues the universe was created by God (A)

- person 2 argues that it was instead created by turtles (B)

- person 1 then challenges person 2 to explain why B has the characteristics that it does (why is it 'turtle-shaped')

- person 2 says that B exists the way it does the same way person 1 believes that A exists the way it does (because 'it always existed' like that)

It may still seem like gibberish, but that's probably because person 1 is using a red herring by moving the argument away from 'who created the world?' and towards 'what does the one who made the world look like?' This is irrelevant to the question of how the world came to be, and how it was formed by that thing. So it is an irrelevant premise.

Person 2 also does not answer the question (ignoratio elenchi) by responding by explaining why they accept the premise that turtles are turtle-shaped, not explaining why they are actually turtle-shaped - so they're describing their beliefs, rather than describing an observation. To do this, they make an analogy, where they claim "just as you believe God is non-physical and shapeless because 'he's always been like that', I believe that green turtles are turtle-shaped because they've always existed like that'. A couple more fallacies here - first, person 2 commits a strawman fallacy by assuming that person 1 accepts that God is non-physical and shapeless - person 1 didn't say that, they simply professed believe in God. Secondly, there is another strawman when person 2 presume the reasons for the belief - person 1 didn't say they accept the physical properties of God because 'he's always been like that'. Further to that point, to claim that 'X is Y because X has always been Y' is simply circular reasoning (begging the question) because the premise is effectively the same as the conclusion.

I hope I got that right...if Dr Bo is stumped idk if I came close to answering anything.