FFS, reading comprehension, please. I asked you to show me where I denied the necessity of logic; you then took that as a claim that <i>you</i> said that (I never said any such thing) and then repeated your lie about me saying (although now you've backed off to merely implying) that logic is not necessary. In fact, I said (well, implied) that an understanding of a subject is a useful part of an intellectual discussion, since you seem to be under the impression that it's perfectly acceptable to criticize a complex scientific theory with virtually no real knowledge of it. Logic is of course a requisite part of the discussion, which unfortunately you seem to be quite deficient in as well.
Trending Articles
More Pages to Explore .....