No, I haven’t used any fallacies, OzSpen.

<<Again you have used an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.>>

I suggest you read up on what the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy is:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

If you’re going to fire off accusations of fallacies left, right, and centre, then you need to ensure that you a least get them right. You just look foolish, otherwise.

And what do you mean by “again”?

<<It is fallacious reasoning as you've not given evidence to support your claims, but have resorted to ridicule to replace evidence.>>

Evidence for what claims? You are the only one who bears a burden of proof thus far.

I’ll tell you what is a fallacy, though. Shifting the burden of proof.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

<<While entropy … can be increased or remain the same, it cannot be decreased, according to the Second Law.>>

Actually, it can:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html

<<Since the universe is increasing in entropy, it seems to point to the universe not being eternal.>>

I wasn’t talking about the universe, I was talking about matter.

<<Surely the universe has had ample time to run down completely …>>

Wow. That’s a bold claim. How did you determine this?

<<… the Second Law of Thermodynamics points to a universe that was created (had a beginning) and is not eternal.>>

The universe as we know it had a beginning, yes. The Big Bang theory suggests this. However, this has nothing to do with whether matter is eternal.

<<[The scientific method and peer review are] not restricted to the empirical sciences.>>

At no point did I suggest that they were. My point, that we are not hopelessly trapped by our worldviews, still stands.

<<That's because [the Bible is] historically reliable …>>

You have not yet demonstrated this.

<<… and one of the tests of reliability for any book is internal consistency.>>

You’ve got to be kidding me! The Bible contains more inconsistencies than you can poke a stick at.

http://bibviz.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

But, please, tell me what these internal consistencies are that you speak of?

Continued…

…Continued

<<Here you've used a Red Herring.>>

How is asking for an example of convincing evidence from Gish a red herring? You referenced him for evidence of the creation story, therefore, asking for an example of his evidence is entirely relevant to the discussion.

<<There's not just one, the evidence from the Grand Canyon fossils is significant to confirm a world wide flood.>>

Firstly, I never suggested there was only one argument. I asked for what you thought was the best argument.

Secondly, no, they’re not evidence of a worldwide flood:

http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/top-five-creationist-claims-grand-canyon-5-fossil-footprint-0015205

Interesting that you felt an answer was justified in this this instance, though. How was my question not a red herring in this instance when it was the same as the question that came before it?

<<Another red herring, without evidence.>>

Nope, still not a red herring. Do you even know what a red herring is?

There was nothing misleading or distracting about what I said. I was noting my past as a Christian, creationist, and an apologist in an attempt to save us both time, for there seems to be this assumption on your behalf you that I am just some naive fool who has charged in, guns blazing, armed with nothing more than a few baseless assumptions and presuppositions.

<<So have you committed apostasy?>>

Correct.

<<You go to rationalwiki for your evidence to refute the Exodus …>>

No, it was just a quick and convenient link. The paragraph I linked you to had more scholarly references.

<<… and I referred you to one of the greatest archaeologists, William Albright, who confirmed the Exodus through evidence.>>

He hardly confirmed it, going by what you provided.

<<Argument from Silence is another logical fallacy you use here.>>

No, I suggest you read up on what the Argument from Silence is:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/57/Argument-from-Silence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

That there is no evidence for the Exodus, when it should be abundant, is telling - even if it is not conclusive evidence that it never happened.

Still no fallacies. You need to put a little more effort into identifying them correctly.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7732#237838

Welcome Papa Zoom,

«Is it true students are banned from talking about Jesus?»

I don't think so - not according to the article anyway: the decrees are against religious educators, forbidding them to encourage children to speak about Jesus. As far as I can tell, the regime does not currently attack the children directly, nor would it find it easy.

If parents stand behind, back and support their children, telling them to defy the school authorities, I can't see how the children could be stopped - in North Korea yes, but not in Australia. I don't think it would come to that here, but if parents instructed their child to keep up the faith even if the government-school burns them at the stake, then I believe that the government would blink first.

So you are an American and I hear that in America, Trump wants to do away with state-run schools - that's great news for you!

AJ Philips,

For every logical fallacy I accused you of using, I checked with the largest online fallacy list that you recommend: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies

Every one of your fallacies used was confirmed by that website and the labels I gave - every one.

I hope you realise that you committed another fallacy with your statement, <<Still no fallacies. You need to put a little more effort into identifying them correctly.>>

This is an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy: http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Appeal-to-Ignorance.html. This Fallacy states that,

"This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim".

You have argued that you have used no fallacies and that I need to spend more effort on identifying logical fallacies correctly. For you, that conclusion must be true, but this has shifted the burden of proof away from AJ to OzSpen. You have committed the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

Yuyutsu,

Papa Zoom asked: <<Is it true students are banned from talking about Jesus?>> Your response was: <<I don't think so - not according to the article anyway: the decrees are against religious educators, forbidding them to encourage children to speak about Jesus.>>

This is false. I do wish you would have read Bill O'Chee's article carefully. Read it again, please!

The first paragraph states:

"Recent attempts by Queensland's Education Department to ban students talking about Jesus with other students are absurd, and frankly disturbing. However, closer examination of the policy documents used by the Department shows that this is just the tip of the iceberg".

It has nothing to do with religious education but students talking about Jesus to other students.

O'Chee also wrote in the article, "Instead, the Education Department thinks it better to strictly control the right to religion and to censor what children are allowed to tell each other". Again, no mention of religious education on the State school campus.

I have been told of a school child in a public school who has been disciplined for mentioning the name of Jesus.

So you don't even know what the Argument from Ignorance is then, OzSpen?

<<This is an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy …>>

No, it was not the argument from ignorance because I did not appeal to your inability to point out a fallacy on my behalf as evidence that I had committed one. I was simply stating that I had not yet committed a fallacy.

<<"This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim".>>

Correct. At no point did I do that. According to your loose idea of what the Argument from Ignorance is, no one would be able to claim that they have not done something without fallaciously appealing to ignorance.

Once again, you demonstrate that your ability to identify fallacies is abysmal, and that your application of them is, in itself, fallacious.

<<You have argued that you have used no fallacies …>>

Correct. You have not yet identified one, because I have not yet committed one.

<<... and that I need to spend more effort on identifying logical fallacies correctly.>>

Yes, that was a friendly bit of advice. For you to turn that around on me by suggesting that I think that your ability to identify fallacies was the determinant for whether or not I have committed one, is dishonest.

<<... this has shifted the burden of proof away from AJ to OzSpen.>>

You are the one who has claimed that I have committed a fallacy, therefore, you are the one who bears the burden of proof for that claim. I have not shifted the burden of proof.