Creationism museum opens in Alberta

Oh, by no means!Again. Have you had the chance to visit the museum?

Should you wish to discuss "all evidences" of "creation" there are over 1000 threads available in "Social and Religious Issues".

Yes? And?

I believe the topic has been moved to "Is It Science?" from the "Coffee House" earlier in the thread.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Message 125 Message 129 Message 133 Message 136 Messge 141 Message 147 Message 150 Let me see if I've got this straight.
RAZD: Comment.
keys: Oh yeah? I posted a picture of Jesus.
jar: Comment.
keys: Oh yeah? What about my picture of Jesus?
Jaderis: Comment.
keys: Oh yeah? You didn't comment on my picture of Jesus.Ad nauseum.OK. I give.keys. I see you've posted a picture of Jesus.

OK.Let's start here then.Why don't you lay out "all evidences" that "creation" is true and we can get a discussion going.

Terrific!
Can you give us an example of this "evidence"?

Hey guys?I know it's tempting to hammer keys on the science thing but it's pretty plain he'll dodge any science questions.How about we press him to provide something other than his bare assertion that "evidence exists for a god"?

You mean "Look! A picture of an empty cave!"? keys.For the third time.Why don't you point to some "evidence" in the "museum" and discuss why you think it's correct?

keys.FYIShifting the burden of proofThe burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.You have asserted that there is evidence of god.
The burden of proof is on you.Perhaps something in the "museum" would prove god's existence, hm?

No. That's a bare assertion.Where's your evidence?

keys.FYIArgumentum ad populumThis is known as Appealing to the Gallery or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language.That's two logical fallacies.Care to offer some evidence?Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Are you referring to this? And this? You noticed an exhibit?
That's your evidence?Offer some evidence! Any evidence!And then, on top of everything else, you throw down the gauntlet and when both RAZD and Rahvin rise to the bait, you dodge with this? You just added two fallacies to your list!Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust). The fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. Of course, it is not fallacious to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments.Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). The fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.Congratulations, keys! That's 4 logical fallacies in the space of less than 10 posts! Care to try for five?Again. keys.You have asserted that there is evidence of god.
The burden of proof is on you.You have made the bare assertion that Jesus rose from the dead.
The burden of proof is on you."Look! A picture!" is not evidence.
"All my friends think so!" is not evidence.I'm beginning to think you don't want to discuss anything.Prove me wrong, keys. I'm begging you. Prove me wrong.Don't want to discuss those icky science questions?Fabulous!
Let's stick to jebus.Now.
You were saying?

That's five!
Congratulations, Mr. keys, you've done it! Another bare assertion with no supporting evidence!What has he won, Johnny?

Number 6! Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). When someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing.Number 7! Red herring. Introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.You know, at this rate, you're going to plow thru all 34 fallacies in the next day or two!