[Con X-Poser]

<< And Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was a rabid anti-Semite. Might it be possible both men were simply children of their times? >>

I'm not fan of Martin Luther, so that dog won't hunt.

If true, does that justify it? It sure doesn't seem to let the founders of America off the hook for being slaveowners, even though they were the generation that noticed the contradiction of fighting for freedom while owning slaves.

Does appealing to sins of others exonerate Darwin from his?

BTW, what about the rest of that post? Silence? I didn't even ask anybody for their qualifications to castigate Dr. Mastropaulo.

[VadeRetro]

<< And Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was a rabid anti-Semite. Might it be possible both men were simply children of their times? >>

I'm not fan of Martin Luther, so that dog won't hunt.

Evidently, you can't expose the illogic in ad hominem until you find somebody of whom Poser is a fan and attack that person with ad hominem. Let's try again, then, with a new example.

Dr. Peter Ruckman has been divorced twice, in one case to eventually marry the wife of a student. In light of this, the King James Bible is not, as Ruckman claims, the inerrant word of God.

So how's that for valid logic, Poser? (And of course, I barely skim the surface of what is out there about Ruckman.)

[Junior]

Your claiming Darwin to be a racist and thus discounting anything he may have said is the same as my pointing out that modern Protestantism was founded by a rabid anti-Semite. They both have the same relevance.