All quotes are from A.Sphere
I do have big hands - they contain thousands of folks directly involved in researching biological evolution - and way out on the tip of my pinky under my finger nail is your 77.
This is argumentum ad populem. I agree that as you have stated, you do like to argue, but arguing fallacies does nothing for your credibility.
This makes zero sense. I have a Master's but I am working on my PhD therefore I am a graduate student. I do scientific research and publish and go to conferences and present which makes me a scientist. If I were to quit after my PhD and then 10 years from now start criticising GR people would laugh at me. Those are the PhD's that don't count from your list - ones who haven't kept up with modern research by being actively involved in it.
And now you argue a fallacy of exclusion on a totally arbitrary basis. At least you're consistent with your logic.
Pins? What pins?
The pins where you are trying to defend the "science" of hallibut "evolution" and you have nothing to offer but more fairytales like Dawkins did. If you want science to be taught in the schools then provide us with the science of the "evolution" of the hallibut. Don't give us anything that starts with "imagine this". Give the children science, not imagination, lies, and fairytales.
I didn't say that you couldn't comment or talk about it or protest about it or write songs and poems about it or name your budgie Kent,
Yes, and that's another red herring......
I said that you can't just insert ID into public schools until it has convinced a sizeable population of folks working directly in the field - not in a field that studies the breeding cycles of tadpoles or something though interesting not really related. I can talk about it until I am blue in the face and so can you and we should because we learn. However I didn't say that you couldn't comment - where did you get that?
Again, another strawman argument...You are restating our/my arguments as if I am arguing that ID should be taught in schools. We have not argued that. It is a strawman. Then you create another strawman restating that I said we/I
couldn't comment on something. You are using one fallacy after another.
Strawmen? Lets recap - I said that in order for science to be taught in public schools it needs to become standardized - in order for it to be standardized it needs to be accepted by a significant portion of scientists working in the field considered. How is that a strawman? A strawman is when you rephrase your opponents argument in a silly or simple way so that it is easy to rebuttle. When did I do that?
I have listed several in the above comments, but in context I will recap.....
OriginMan provided you a list of approximately 200 well educated professionals who disagree with ToE. Then you immediately restated what he said to suggest that all of these people were Biologists. Here is your next response....
Most of these folks are not even biologists. A psychologist is not an expert in the field of biology. There is only a handful of people on that list that are biologists or geologists. If you take that handful and divide it by the number of folks that are biologists who accept evolution the ratio is very nearly zero.
You just created the strawman argument that basically says that only Biologists and Geologists are qualified to comment on ToE. Then you further compound your fallacy by trying to disqualify any Biologist on his list. Again, I agree you like to argue, but your fallicious nature is evident. That is why we have so much concern about the logic used to interpret evidence and data. If your logic is representative of the science community, then we are all in trouble.
You on the other hand took my argument and claimed that it meant that you can't comment on it unless you are a PhD biologist which is not what I said at all - thats a strawman.
Well you are the one who made this requirement, aren't you????? And then you have the audacity to discredit people who aren't actively publishing papers. Another fallicious requirement arbitrarily created by you.
I only said that I am sure that Dawkin's does not have to revert to Lamarkian evolution to describe Halibut evolution and it only sounds like it because he is explaining it to children.
It sounds like it, because he uses Lamarkian evolution. You can explain mutations to children. Have you ever heard of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Instead he taught lies, and he evangelized. He invoked ID as being non-intelligent to proselitize these children to believe a fairytale.
An "expert" (Audio (US) (helpÃ‚Â·info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment. - from wiki
It typically does take a doctorate in Biology to be an expert in the TOE plus years and years of research, however I did mention in one of my post that some people (like Darwin) could get around this if they are really smart.
I suggest you had better learn what an expert is. ToE includes many fields of study, not just Biology. And experts can disagree, and that doesn't disqualify their expertise. And active publications in the field are not the only qualification.