If it is not an arguement against atheism alone then I feel justified in separating the fields of study in Russ' original post.
I'm not Russ, but it would seem you can choose to support atheistic evolutionism or not support it. I had the impression you'd already made that choice, as a matter of fact.
Are you saying the various forms of evolutionism are immune to discussion? That one cannot discuss theistic evolutionism because one must either discuss theism or evolutionism but not both together? If so, I think you are mistaken.
Certainly you can discuss the two but belief in one does not necessitate belief in the other. So it would be incorrect if you should speak as if it did.
BTW: The tone of your response indicates that you feel Pantoufle was a less-than-intelligent poster and Pwcca resembles someone who is less than intelligent. Certainly you wouldn't be insulting another poster. I must be misreading this as you would surely maintain the high standards that you are expected to enforce as a moderator.
I wrote of Pantoufle's reading capacity. Either you equate reading capacity with intelligence, or your own reading needs improvement. Oops! False dilemma. Could be both.
I find it reassuring that you don't equate reading ability in a particular language with intelligence.
The only link that applies to anything here is the red herring. Your entire post is nothing but a red herring, and this constitutes trolling.
It could be considered trolling if you could provide evidence of intent through say...
I wasn't aware of any 'intent clause' in the trolling laws.
I thought that even the master of obfuscation would understand that trolling is an intentional act so evidence of intent is required to convict someone of such. Perhaps you do understand but are unable to remove yourself from your online persona long enough to admit it.
showing that Pwcca truly understands the meaning of all those fallacies.
Would his employment of them count?
No, since you still don't seem to know the criteria for circular reasoning and you tried, erroneously, to accuse the theory of evolution of employing it.
I find your defense of Pwcca interesting. "Innocent by reason of utter incompetence", is that it?
Lack of knowledge isn't "utter incompetence". Why would you think so? Have you been accused of utter incompetence many times?
Please explain your solution to feigned stupidity, in that case. Should people be permitted to get away with anything on the condition that they're willing to pretend to be stupid? If so, why? If not, how can there be any justice? They don't even have to fear being called 'stupid' too terribly much. There's no down side for miscreants.
So you are in favor of ridding the world of the mentally challenged...Down's Syndrome sufferers and the like? I wouldn't have thought you to be so Machiavellian.
But then what of the person who calls these people 'stupid', and then pretends to be too stupid, or just too incompetent, to know better? I don't think you've considered the implications of making stupidity into a "get out of jail free card". I can somewhat see how you'd desire this to become law, but I think you need to invest a little more time and reconsider.
Ignorance is not stupidity but I guess your English comprehension is a little lacking. Since you consider a person with a lack of knowledge to be "stupid", maybe I should consider all those times you accused me of a lack of knowledge as intentional insults to my character.
You kept using "circular logic" inappropriately in another thread and no one accused you of trolling. Ignorance, yes...trolling, no.
I recall being accused of several things by those who have no trouble at all spotting the circular nature of circular reasoning unless it supports their most sacred religion.
Do you actually consider that statement a response to what I said? Try a reading comprehension course or something.
