Or at least I know a lot more of them than you do.
ROFL!!!!!!! Honestly, that's just about the most dimwitted thing I've heard in a long time.
Um, you're confusing "science" with "empty-headed relativism". Are you sure you have any clue what in the hell you're talking about?
Oooookay... Run along and play, the adults are trying to have a conversation.
Yes, Virginia, some opinions *are* more informed and supportable than others.
Did you learn *nothing* from The Enlightenment? What have you been doing for the past 350 years, napping?
All of the above are fallacies in logic (which made up the bulk of your post). But, since you are so bereft of logic, go sod yourself off thinking you are so smart...
No, they aren't. Trying to discredit an author in order to dishonestly imply that his material is faulty is a fallacy.
It is not, however, a fallacy to show that because the material is laughably wrong, the author is being ridiculous.
I did the latter, not the former. Try to keep up.
But, since you are so bereft of logic,
Unsupported assertion, ten yard penalty. It also appears to be a cheap tactic used for the purpose of evasion (i.e., the old "I don't have to respond to the points you've made if I pretend they aren't there" ruse.)
go sod yourself off thinking you are so smart...
Wow, how could I possibly continue in the face of such a calm, witty, informative, rational response from you?
Look, if you're not emotionally and/or logically able to deal with people pointing out your mistakes, go find some other thread to pester.