but all animals are alike. They're not the exact same but we all share similar behaviors.

I can understand that.

But you need to realize the conditional statement, and realize that God as a designer is implicit to the claim ("he makes gays"). From there, you can argue whether God is real or not, whether he created things. But in the claim, the assumption is that God is real, and that he is the designer, and the question becomes "if he intended a specific purpose, why allow something that doesn't fit that purpose". The argument could be "well, maybe God doesn't exist", and in neither of those is there a logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy would be to say "well, God doesn't exist because science says so". That's appeal to authority. Or, the other could respond "well, God exists because the bible says so", and as such, that would be an appeal to authority.

Yes, but do we all share all behaviors? Do humans swim? Do fish cough?

but i never said god doesn't exist. I simply said that I see those fallacies in religious threads.

I guess you're just extremely bad at explaining what was a simple logical fallacy. His premise was fine, his conclusion wasn't.

The fallacy being that they said that humans purpose is defined by God? But that's implicit in the statement that God is a designer, and that a designer (usually) has a purpose.

You could say that that is a missing assumption, but you can't say it's an appeal to authority, unless the person says "the bible told me so, therefore it is true".

I said he was missing a presmise (which I believed was false), I never said his premise was wrong.

You need to reread the thread. I may be bad at explaining, but it's not the first time you misunderstand me so you could also be bad at understanding. Just saying, could be right, could be wrong.

EDIT: Fair enough, I did say it was based off a false premise. What I meant by that was that he was missing a premise, and that it made his premise (the sum total of it) incomplete and ultimately false in my view.

Scratch that, it was based off a false premise (now I'm getting alzheimers), which was that "all species share the same behaviors", without which the conclusion breaks down.

Bottom line is that his logic was incorrect, and you initially said the contrary.

Yes, clearly it is my fault that you made a fallacious statement which you have now admitted. ??????????

Please quote where I said his logic was correct. This should be interesting.

Selective memory doesn't work when you leave a paper trail. And yours proves diminishing returns on truth.

It assumes that God's design doesn't include homosexuality.

oh and yes to both cases. humans swim and fish cough, in a way. Either way, i do see that i used the incorrect term animal, when i shouldve used mammals.

Fair, you did not say that his logic was correct, but you did not say that it was incorrect, and you bashed my criticism of it. I usually equate that to considering it correct, but that was my fallacy. I guess you were just trying to point out where you thought I may have misread (though I didn't).

Here, you were missing the point entirely:

You said I was using a strawman argument (which I wasn't).