(August 5, 2012 at 8:57 pm)padraic Wrote: It seems to me that a major weakness of many dogmatic apologists is that they don't seem to have actually read anything other than the bible and Christian apologists. These people are not scholars in any meaningful sense,as they ignore/ridicule/deny any evidence which contradicts their dogmatic beliefs.
The depth of closed minded idiocy of many can be seen in young earth creationist loons. Almost every utterance about evolution shows they have simply not studied evolution at the most basic level. Yet they wonder why sceptiks and scholars simply laugh at them
A red herring, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.[1] The term is mostly used to claim that the argument of another person is not relevant to the issue being discussed. In mystery fiction, a clue or lead that turns out not to be relevant to the solution of the mystery would also be a red herring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
What's funny is when a seemingly 'learned man' has to resort to a logical fallacy to prop himelf and his belief back up from what he openly identifies as 'idoticy.' Otherwise why not simply address the points provided with 'evidence and proof?'
