Logical fallacy, "argumentum ad nauseam". Repeating your original fallacy doesn't make it cease to be a fallacy.
You fallacies continues to be: "shifting the burden of proof" and "red herring".
Burden of proof:
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim
Just because you don't want to have to abide by the logical concept of the burden of proof doesn't make it go away.
You were the one who made a claim, not me. You are required, as the one making a claim, to prove your claim or withdrawn you claim and admit you can't prove it.
It's not my responsibility to prove your claim isn't wrong. when you haven't first even attempted to give any facts or arguments to support the supposed truth of your claim.
You are trying to distract from the fact that you can't prove your claim by trying to demand I disprove your claim - which is committing two logical fallacies in one.
That's like saying someone is hiding behind the truth and logic. You don't seem to understand what logic is or how it works. If your argument is based on a logical fallacy then your argument is invalid.
Pointing that out is the opposite of hiding - it's confronting you directly with the wrong of your statements and telling you what you need to do to address that.
You have the responsibility as the one making the invalid argument to correct your errors and try to make a valid argument. Otherwise you concede the debate because you have no logically valid retort to respond with.
Your proposal of a question was itself the logical fallacy of a "Red Herring" and "Shifting the Burden of Proof". As I already pointed out. But since you didn't seem to understand what I already explained to you I will elaborate a bit more for you:
You ignored the valid points I made about the errors in your argument. You made several assertions about creation science in your first post that you have no proof for being true.
I pointed those claims out to you and asked you what proof you had to back up your claim that those assertions could be true - which is a right and logically valid way for someone to respond to any claim you make.
You do understand, don't you, that your claims don't have to be accepted as true by people just because you assert they are true, right? Believing people are forced to accept your assertions are true just because you assert they are would be the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.
Rather than address my valid logical objection to your post, you refused to back up your claims and then tried to distract from your need to do that (which is a red herring fallacy) by demanding I disprove your claim instead (The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof).
You don't get to demand someone disprove your claim unless you first attempt to provide some kind of facts or logical argumentation to justify why your assertion should be accepted as truth. Only when you make a valid logical argument to justify your claim does the other party have an obligation to deal with your argument if they want to dispute your claim. But you haven't made any argument to deal with - That's the problem. You've only made assertions. Unsupported assertions without arguments backing them up. And when challenged to provide an argument to justify your assertions, you balk and distract from it by fallaciously trying to shift the burden of proof.
But demanding someone disprove your claim is not a substitute for making a valid argument in the first place. That's the fallacy of argument by assertion. You're basically asserting something is true and saying that the proof is the fact you asserted it, and now it's the job of someone else to disprove your assertion. That's not how logic and debate work. And that's a big problem you seem to have the most trouble with understanding right now - That demanding a question be answered is not a substitute for having a valid argument in defense of your claims.
Just because you don't want to back up your claims doesn't absolve you of the logical requirement to do so. No one forced you to make those claims. So it's not like you have an excuse not to support them when challenged. If you didn't think you could support your claims, or didn't want to for whatever reason, then you shouldn't have made them in the first place. Or, at the very least, if you want to make claims you don't intend to support, you should at least be intellectually honest enough to come out and admit that you can't do it, or don't want to, when challenged to do so - and stop trying to pretend to continue the debate under the illogical false pretense that you think you don't have to support your claims.
