A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[orogenicman]

First off, I don't believe the bolding emphasis was in Statler's original post; please, if you change bold, italics or elsewise in a poster's text when quoting, alert your reader that you have done so. Arguably, it doesn't change his meaning any, but that's his decision to make, not yours.

Erm, if there was a rule that didn't allow one to highlight portions of someone elses post that one wants to address, I was unaware of it. I've been posting on the internet since 1995, and in my experience, it is very common for people to highlight portions of a post they want to specifically address. I've seen and done this on many ocassions on many forums, and I must say this is the first time anyone has complained to me about the practice. I didn't change the content of the post, but merely highlighted that portion I wanted to address specifically. If this is a problem (more specifically, if it is not allowed here), I would like to be informed that this is the case. Otherwise, I see no point in discontinuing the practice.

I will crop your response here since I am only interested in addressing one point you made (as far as I'm concerned all of what you posted was irrelevant to my response), as it is the only one that actually interests me.

There's only scant evidence for culture at that age, but if man had language and the rudiments of early technology at that point, then the semites of Judaism and Christianity are at the end of a very long string of thinkers (which likely got a massive boost in efficiency with the invention of agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago which lead to a sedentary lifestyle and the formation of cities and civilization).

Actually, there is plenty of archaeological evidence for culture during that time period. We used fire, made tools, buried our dead, and (according to findings in Africa that go back 70,000 years), apparently had a religious belief that involved snake worship.

Secondly, the notion that Judaism and Christianity is at the end of a very long string of thinkers is a rather linear way of viewing the history of those specific traditions. The problem is that no one can make a direct connection with our remote past in such a linear fashion. Furthermore, it assumes that everything that came before culminated in those two traditions, and there is simply not much evidence for this. Both Judaism and Christianity post-date other traditions, few of which they are built upon. Finally, it assumes that Judaism and Christianity are the end result of all those earlier thinkers, and I for one believe that is incorrect. There are plenty of thinkers out there today who don't subscribe to either tradition, and neither tradition if an end result of those other thinkers/tradtions.

But then, what any of this has to do with my question "Erm, how is "God did it" a logical argument?" is the real question. God did it is not a logical argument. It is special pleading, a which is a logical fallacy.