[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.)

[Con X-Poser]

<< 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. >>

Talk about comparing apples with oranges! Dr. Ruckman does not advocate divorce because of the tragedies that befell him, whereas almost every early proponent of evolutionism used it to justify racism. So even if your claims were true, they have no relevance to the Bible, but the racism and sexism of Darwin and his cohorts comes FROM their evolutionary beliefs.

Also, you got your skewed information about Ruckman from one of his enemies. He did not get any divorce - his wives sought the divorce in both cases. Thus he could not have become divorced "to" marry anybody else.

The information on Darwin's racism and sexism comes from HIM and his supporters, not his enemies. It's not ad hominem, it's showing the result of their beliefs. I am quite surprised Vade, usually you are quiter adept when it comes to ad hominem argumentum.