[darbymcgill]

The original poster equated himself with God. Wouldn't you consider such an action at least arrogant and delusional?

In my reading of the posts the poster never equates "himself" to God, but he equates his words to the words of God. Quite a distinction in my opinion.

Secondly, are you saying that if someone is in your opinion, arrogant or delusional they are forbidden or by definition cannot make a logical argument?

Making a negative description of a person does not necessarily by definition defeat their argument.

[Dimensio]

In my reading of the posts the poster never equates "himself" to God, but he equates his words to the words of God. Quite a distinction in my opinion.

So you're saying that I should have considered the possibility that the poster merely believed that every word he spoke came directly, and unerringly, from God himself.

Okay. I admit that I did not consider such a possibility. Now that I do consider it, I still don't see how I can consider the poster as anything but supremely arrogant and delusional.

Secondly, are you saying that if someone is in your opinion, arrogant or delusional they are forbidden or by definition cannot make a logical argument?

In the case of the poster to whom I was responding, he made no logical arguments. If he had, I would have addressed them. Instead, he repeatedly made claims to the effect that he had supreme knowledge of God and that pointing out the false statements of creationists is tantamount to calling God a liar.

[Junior]

Secondly, are you saying that if someone is in your opinion, arrogant or delusional they are forbidden or by definition cannot make a logical argument?

Nothing like that can be read into what I wrote. Hell, I'm arrogant and delusional, but I make logical arguments.