The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy where someone assumes that if they can't believe that a certain concept is true, then it must be false, and vice versa. For example, if someone doesn't understand how evolution works, they might use the argument from incredulity in order to claim that the theory of evolution must be incorrect, since they are unable to see how it could possibly be true.
... and to bring this up as part of an argument. The issue with doing so occurs when this incredulity isn’t justified or supported by concrete information, and when this lack of belief is used in order to assume that a preferred personal explanation must be the right one, despite the lack of proof.
At the same time, it’s also important to remember that it’s possible that the person using the argument from incredulity is right, despite the fact that their reasoning is flawed.
Explain why this sort of reasoning is fallacious: namely the fact that your opponent’s inability to explain a certain phenomenon or to understand a certain theory, does not invalidate current explanations for it.
Shift the burden of proof back to your opponent: ask them to support their initial assertion, and explain why they are incredulous, and why they think that this validates their position.
If possible, you should show that there is scientific evidence that can be used in order to explain the phenomenon that’s being discussed.
Cherry picking is a logical fallacy which occurs when someone focuses only on evidence which supports their stance, while ignoring evidence which contradicts it. For example, a person who engages in cherry picking might mention only a small number of studies out of all the studies which were published on a certain topic, in an attempt to make it look as if the scientific consensus matches their stance.
"The law says you should drive on the right side of the road, and the law is the law."
When someone is questioning this statement, they are questioning the law. If we say, "because that is the law," we are begging the question. We are assuming the validity of what the other person is questioning.