"commonly". That is a big statement with no supportive documentation.
I had written, "You commonly commit logical fallacies." That's correct. I made a claim and didn't attempt to support it. Examples are coming.
Perhaps you also have been accused of logical fallacies?
Yes, in your last post to me, when you implied that I committed a straw man fallacy, and again in this reply where you imply an ad ignorantiam fallacy (coming up).
At this point... I think it is irrelevant to the real issues not to mention I don't want to go down that path - for time sake.
I had written, "Are you implying that you made a claim and I refuted something else? If so, what was the claim and where is it (post number)? I'd like to review it and my response. And if you can't do that, isn't it you that's introducing the straw man here?"
So, I must accept your position because there isn't (in your opinion) enough evidence?
You responded to, "Again, so what? Also, with these alternate sources for Matthew and Luke, we don't know that they didn't just make it up themselves when text in their Gospels appears nowhere else. And even if they didn't, we would have no way of corroborating most of those claims."
No. You can just disregard it, but I doubt that you can successfully rebut either sentence. Can you falsify either claim? I think that if you comment at all, you're forced to either agree with them or dismiss them with the wave of a hand.
Watch out for the appeal to ignorance fallacy.
That was also in response to that same comment. I didn't see such a fallacy. Do you know what an as ignorantiam fallacy looks like? It's basically saying that if something hasn't been shown to be correct, it is incorrect (or the opposite - if one can't disprove a claim, it is correct). We see it when creationists, for example, argue that if the evolutionary path from arboreal ape to man hasn't been elucidated yet, it didn't happen, or that if one can't prove that an intelligent designer wasn't involved, one was. Do you see an example of that in there?
These are the kinds of mistakes that you make that undermine your criticism of critical thinking. I don't expect you to go learn that material - how to identify and name fallacies - but you could help yourself by recognizing that you fall short as you have a few times in these last few exchanges.
You committed the ad hominem fallacy of attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the issue that was talked about.
Did he? He wrote, "You were too lazy to find a scholastic source and you accuse me of not using elbow grease." The ad hominem fallacy is that an argument is incorrect because of some character defect in the source. He's telling you that your source wasn't a qualified source. But what he is not telling you is that that makes its conclusions false. He's telling you that he'snot interested in such opinions, not that they are incorrect.
One might also call it the genetic fallacy: "Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises." But it's not that, either. It's not a counterargument to the claim, just an unwillingness to consider it because of its source. And you might find that thinking flawed. You implied that he needed to address the source's claim whatever the source, but I disagree. The source needs to be a trusted source that shares the values and methods of academia.
Somebody once showed me a creationist argument against human evolution from other apes. The argument was that all existing great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but man has only 23 pairs, and could not have had a 24-pair ancestor that lost a whole chromosome without dying. If one evaluates only the argument provided, he probably won't find the flaw in it. Much better to go to a scientific teaching source, where one would never see an argument as dishonest as that one, where people who share one's agenda, values, and methods write to those wishing to understand, not a site whose authors' agenda is to promote their religion using any method they think will do that.
So, I just don't go to such sites for anything and would steer others away as well, not because I know that every claim is wrong, but because I don't trust the source. Yes, man only has 23 pairs of chromosomes, and yes, a chromosome dropout mutation would be lethal, and fact-checking those claims would reveal that they are both correct, but that's not what happened, and nobody is going to figure that out without an understanding of human chromosome 2, which won't be revealed either by fact-checking the premises of reviewing the validity of the reasoning provided. Once again, the claim is not that the argument is wrong because it comes from a creationist, but that the argument shouldn't be trusted because the source isn't honest.
This is also my answer to those who want to send me to conservative indoctrination site, who share the same methods and values as the creationist sites - to convince others to support their agenda by any means that might work however dishonest.
