How does your predictable, programmed emotional reaction or your opinion of ME in any way refute the fact that Mormons can be observed all over this board engaging in the evasions I described (and which you are demonstrating right here)?Much like other posters you do so by creating a thread about a somewhat related topic, (this time evidence), but you assume the role of a pontificating professor to compensate for your lack of any actual scholarly ability. Therefore I am exactly on topic by questioning your ability to assess and produce evidence. But that seems to be your way to save face so by all means, I'm horribly off topic and making false allegations or whatever you need to say to look good.
Style is not substance. You still have yet to even mention, let alone try to rebut my point that Mormons can be easily observed committing the fallacies I listed in the OP.Just for kicks let me answer your rebuttal in your own style. It is obvious that YOU and not ME have COMPELTELY and TOTALLY failed to offer any sort of "argument". So you will continue to underline and capitalize your words to compensate for not having evidence, or even having anything less that total ignorance in ACADEMIC methods.
Your claim to be an "extensively published historian" is a laugh. You are trying to appeal to your own alleged expertise where you SHOULD be actually refuting my claims about the fallacies you guys commit all over this board. That's pretty feeble, Mr. DeanE. Its not even an argument.I know whatever I say is proof of whatever you think about Mormons. Nobody except maybe your cheerleaders here are falling for it. I'm especially unimpressed, as an extensively published historian, of you lecture on "evidence."
You have just demonstrated you are nothing of the kind. Your observable FAILURE to refute my points on the nature of evidence and your reversion to nothing more than an obviously programmed emotional reaction and your voicing of nothing but empty rejection without even engaging the material that has your panties all wadded up, proves you are nothing of the kind. A REAL historian would at least be able to recognize the self-evident and indisputable FACT that, for example, things that do not leave evidence to begin with (like a man walking on water 2,000 years ago), is not a valid subject for a request for evidence. Your failure to even acknowledge something as bluntly obvious as that is proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.