[Tribune7]

In other words, you didn't read it and can't refute it.

I did read. It's hard to refute ad hominem. Is Gish/Wells etc. giving incorrect info, because they are lying? Or just being sloppy or stubborn? Or are they giving basically correct info but are the victims of false witness?

The Talk Origin stuff had a lot of ad hominem and charges filled with ad hominem should not be taken seriously.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I did read. It's hard to refute ad hominem."

So, you didn't read it and can't refute it.

[VadeRetro]

The Talk Origin stuff had a lot of ad hominem and charges filled with ad hominem should not be taken seriously.

Demonstrations that someone is serially and incorrigibly repeating false statements are not argumentae ad hominem and at any rate should be taken seriously. It is true that such demonstrations at length leave no doubt that the person is a certifiable untruth-teller, but an inescapable conclusion is that the things the person is saying are untrue. I can't imagine how that is irrelevant.

[VadeRetro]

An example of true ad hominem.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1577107/posts?q=1&&page=338#338. You'll note all the creationists jumping all over this person to clean up his act. Then again, no you won't.