>... is that God/gods must be empirically observable facts.

my pressuposition is that thunder does not come from the god Thor. That does not presuppose that God/gods as a whole must be empirically observable facts.

>That, logically, can't be of any use to you in arguing against
>creationism of any sort.

That's ok, cuz I never said anything about that.

>No worries though, you can always
>arm yourself with sarcasm.

Or I can arm myself with scientific refutations of pseudoscientific creationist claims, as I did in post #42. But when you ignore that, sarcasm does help get the point across.

And BTW, while the doppler radar thing was indeed sarcastic, it's also a perfectly sound argument.

>Especially when obvious points
>such as the above are pointed out.

Especially when such obvious points have nothing to do with my arguments.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!