To: AndrewC
"So. You attack the argument not someone who is not "there" to argue. Dawkins already stated he had handled the arguments made by Gould."
Gould was a major part of Bradley's argument, and bringing it up again is not ad hominem. By your logic, if someone levels accusations at you based on the claims of one or more other people, you aren't allowed to reiterate your disagreements with and refutations of the these earlier claims because the people who made them did not write the article. This is insane.
661 posted on
11/24/2005 7:37:59 PM PST by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Gould was a major part of Bradley's argument, and bringing it up again is not ad hominem.No, that wasn't, but his attack stating that Gould did not read his book was, and was unnecessary.
662 posted on
11/24/2005 7:52:36 PM PST by
AndrewC
(I give thanks to God.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
This is insane.No. That was a strawman.
663 posted on
11/24/2005 8:06:28 PM PST by
AndrewC
(I give thanks to God.)
664 posted on
11/24/2005 8:28:37 PM PST by
PatrickHenry
(Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson