The real religion?

[RoadRunner79]

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.

1. Yes
2. Not at the moment.

A.  What is factually wrong

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

Again, I think this would be better in a new thread, but I would be interested in hearing these facts.... Keep in mind, that facts don't change.

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.

I'm not saying that it is invalid, because you do it too.... That is just inconsistent.  And I would still think that it is an invalid principle (concerning testimony), even if you where coherent in your application.
You would need to give me a reasonable basic principle for why it shouldn't be applied equally in regard to knowledge transferred from another, that wasn't experienced first hand.

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.  

I'm not saying that evolution is false.... something's under the wide meaning of evolution I do believe as true, some I am skeptical about, and others I think are false (and for reasons more than that they haven't been shown to be true).  

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.  

I would agree that it doesn't demonstrate evidence for my belief, again this has to do with epistemology.  And again, all you have to do is give me a valid basic principle, for why it shouldn't be applied equally in regard to knowledge transferred from another, that wasn't experienced first hand.  I'm not saying that they are the same, it is about the method for gaining knowledge, that you are basing your reasoning on.

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.  

The conversation had strayed far from the op... which wasn't the validity of scripture.   and I didn't back peddle on anything.   I raised a concern about a portion of the discussion.  And then it morphed from there as threads often due, especially at this post count.  However I think it would be more profitable to focus on the discussion and less on me.