The real religion?

[LadyForCamus]

I think that your clairvoyance is broken today... but go ahead, and keep straw manning what you believe I am thinking. Even when I say directly, you still tell me I'm wrong... I give up.

Then let's clear this up right now, shall we?

1. Do you, or do you not claim the bible is the word of God? Yes or no?

2. Are you, or are you not interested in arguing in favor of the truth of your beliefs?

If the answer to these is no, that's perfectly fine, and our conversation is mostly over. If yes, then you are subject to the burden of proof.

A. What is factually wrong

Saying that there is no evidence for evolution is factually wrong. Because, evolution is a scientific fact.

B. Please explain..... What do you think the argument is, that the tu quoque fallacy applies and how?

Sure. Because saying, "you believe something for bad reasons too!" Or, more generally, "you do it too!" is the definition of a tu quoque fallacy. Which is what you're doing in regards to evolution.

That's not the what the argument from ignorance is. (But perhaps we should start another thread, and we can list the facts about evolution).

Except, yes it is, lol.

"X is false because you cannot prove that X true" is an example of the argument from ignorance in its logical form.

It's factually incorrect when applied to evolution, because...evolution IS a scientific fact. Not to mention it's irrelevant to any positive argument you can or can't put forth for the existence of your God.

And all of these are shot out at us from under the umbrella of a big, fat conflating of scripture writings and scientific evidence; giving yourself a way to say, "your science isn't anymore reliable than my bible, so if you aren't going to believe the bible, than you shouldn't believe in science/evolution either."

You can stamp your feet about it all you want, but conflating science and scripture IS a fallacious argument, and has nothing to do with demonstrating positive evidence for your beliefs.

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from association football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage

Uh...thanks. And, that's exactly what you are doing when you throw your hat into the ring of a debate about the validity of scripture and then back peddle; insisting you aren't making any claims, so that you won't be held accountable for demonstrating any evidence.