I knew the word, but I wanted to make sure--it's a label that gets thrown around pretty freely. In this case, you claim my analogy between evolution and gravity is sophistry, but you haven't shown that there's anything wrong with it. You've just asserted that they're not comparable. "Because I say so" may not be sophistry, but it's still a lousy argument.
And if your previous post is an example of what you call "logic," I'm afraid you won't find much defense there either. First of all, the lack of a religious belief is not a religious belief. Second, you haven't come close to proving evolution wrong--you've just thrown out some talking points that sound good to you.
Besides, like I said, I was originally making a very limited point. I can understand why you'd like to change the discussion to where the microbes come from, but you haven't shown that it matters. Again, "because I say so" isn't enough.
In the case of evolution where each and every criticism of it is immediately and automatically attacked as "anti-science" and/or "religion", then it's more accurately identified as a cult.
Funny, in the case of liberals it works just fine for them...the NEA run gubmint schools work exactly that way.
“You’ve just asserted that they’re not comparable.”
That’s often the problem with sophistry. It’s why liberals dominate our culture, despite gaping holes in their “arguments” to any reasonable person. They’re not dumb, liberals. They know how to construct an argument which is hard to defeat.
It’s absolutely clear to anyone who’s looking clearly & honestly that the comparison you made is false. You probably see that yourself, really! (I probably could construct a detailed rebuttal, but it would take a darn while & hardly anyone would care, & you would probably just ignore all the good stuff & pick out one sentence that gave you your best shot of winning, because that’s where we’re at here)
toe is a religion, and it shouldn’t be tax funded.