«electronic format is much more versatile (read on virtually any device)» - isn't this a
bit of a strawman once we consider that the alternative to «virtually any device will do» is «no device is required in the first place»?
The words «chance» and «accidents» are not part of the equation; they are only used when the dishonest party wishes to put forth an easy target --- they are part
of strawman fallacies, not genuine debate.
«According to you, no babies have ever died in the hospital for unforseen reasons...» Thank you for showcasing your inability to formulate a logical argument and lack of reading comprehension, and providing us with a textbook
example of the strawman fallacy.
No
more of a strawman than your «hoping that more and more growth will magically create a bullet that solves the problem» (who said that?).
-- It's characterization of the IPCC process has the smell of a conspiracy to it and is
full of strawmen arguments.
I realize my last comment must have came across as condescending, especially with, I fully admit, my
use of strawmans, but if Bible verses were enough, you wouldn't need people like WL Craig and Dinesh running around trying to revive and modify arguments defeated long ago.
«Sole» is a
bit of a strawman — there are several factors, but CO2 is primarily for the recent temperature trends.
I never heard of the idea that christianity grew because of persecution so I think that is
kind of a strawman.
Except that is a bit
of a strawman.
and Then There's Physics: Except that is a bit
of a strawman.