After reading a book which I've been wanting to read for a long time about faulty reasoning and going through several examples of argument from ignorance, here is what I've understood what everyone, especially Sheldon, was trying to tell me in this topic:

----

CONCLUSION:

The practitioners of divination of eggs commit the argument from ignorance fallacy when they associate supernatural causes to a phenomenon (different egg appearances) because of their lack of knowledge of the topic. They are obviously not farmers or holders of degrees in poultry science and this leads to the "argument from ignorance".

Furthermore, the claims made by these people cause the burden of proof to be on them and since these claims are unsupported, the entire topic of divination of eggs can be dismissed.

In summary, it's bullshit because the claimants committed the argument from ignorance fallacy and assumed what they saw was supernatural. And then, what they assumed was not just assumptions but rather direct claims and since these claims had no empirical evidence, it makes their whole position in the argument to be not just weak but entirely invalid.

What I did wrong, then, is the following:

1) Encountered "oomancy" or divination by eggs ritual and ignored the burden of proof principle i.e. the claimant (the one who claimed supernatural causes for the egg appearances) has the burden
2) Usually the claimant attempts to shift the burden of proof on the opponent but in this situation, I took the "honor" of shifting it upon myself
3) I then researched for hours on the causes behind those particular appearances of the egg but somehow ended up being unable to find one for the point #29
4) The difference between me and the oomancy believers at this point was that DUE TO THE SHIFTED BURDEN OF PROOF on me by myself and because of my researching, those believers thought all the 29 appearances indicated something supernatural while I found out that 28 of them were completely natural
5) I then asked a question on Atheist Republic about the biological explanation of #29 because I feared that no natural explanation of it meant that the supernatural association to it might be true. Here is when I committed the argument from ignorance fallacy. Next, I did receive a reply and then several replies about this #29 which made me research again and realize that this too was natural. However that didn't change the fact that I could've avoided all the fuss by knowing the burden of proof principle and the argument from ignorance fallacy
6) It all ended when I incurred the wrath of Sheldon and that made me so angry that I became ashamed of myself and started reading a book on faulty reasoning which then led me to understand that my logical reasoning was fucked up and I don't know what the fuck was I even doing.

THE END. Makes any sense? Did I get the CONCLUSION part correct?