UltimateReality
Active Member
- Jan 13, 2012
- 2,790
- 15
- 36
What strawman? My request for your explanation of this "God" thing of yours cannot by any means be considered an argument for or against anything ... let alone a strawman argument.![]()
So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours?
I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. WHY IS THAT?
Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
You can quit with your strawman argument anytime now.
What is really going on here, is that you are as aware as I am that your "God" thing has as much validity in reality as the Easter Bunny.
The demonstrable reality of that fact is the most inconvenient fact of your superstitious Intelligent-Design theorizing. Which is why ID "science" is far more concerned with rhetorical attempts to "punch holes" in evolution, than actually doing some real science.
This is nothing more than a strawman argument. How many times can you go on about such a fallacious claim? If you can try to address what was really said, I might respond to you but I will not entertain your false claims for what I was arguing.
Last edited: