[smoothmoniker]

Haven’t read it, but saw a series of debates between shermer and doug geivett. Shermer has a tendency to ignore your actual argument, and rail against what he thinks you said. Geivett built a very convincing kalam cosmological argument, and shermer tried to argue as if he was trotting out Aquinas for another round. Either not very bright, or not very intellectually honest, regardless of what you think about the final conclusion.

Straw man defense.

-sm

edit: sorry, i should say, he wasn't arguing in a very bright way. I'm sure he's an intelligent man. i'll have to check out the series.