No but it has more weight attached to it.
Again, it is not attacking the person to question their background in a given area.
Still ad-hominem, still attacking the person (Persons background / quals is the person) rather than the position.
For example if someone with a doctorate in Christian Theology who has published a million books and journals denied the deity of Christ, then when challenged by a regular Joe blogs just said oh you don't have the quals to back yourself, therefore because I have the PHD and I'm published I am right or most likely to be right everyone should believe me.
Though a vulgar example illustrates that the someone making an appeal to their own authority (or the non-authority of another) in no way affects the position nor the argument, case in point the deity of Christ. The argument to be valid must therefore focus on the position and the refutation of the position not the person.
Of course. But I'll take a PhD chemist over a doctor when it comes to chemistry.
I'll take neither up front, take advice from both, research each position then make my decision. To do otherwise IMO would be philosophically unsound.
But that is not the argument here. The point is they don't bring in an expert witness on DNA who is a car mechanic by profession. On science issues you are the car mechanic it seems.
Hypothetically even if a car mechanic was also the worlds expert on DNA but had no quals and nothing published he still would not be brought into the court room. I can tell you why too. It is because the fallacy of appeal to authority is an effective tool as are many fallacies for convincing the unwary Judge and Jury. If someone can bring in a PHD in molecular DNA that has published 50 books and 500 scientific reviewed papers versus a PHD in molecular DNA with no publishings yet, then people will naturally gravitate their opinion to the "more experienced" / "more authoritative" of the two regardless of whether they are actually right. Court is as much of a mind game with the Judge and Jury as it is about the evidence. David Bain is proof of that.
I don't disagree with this - but you are wrong in your assertions about science - i.e. it is about proof or 90% of evidence is young earth. And what is rock to man? Never heard evolution given that extreme a strawman - usually it is the AIG silly from goo to you via the zoo.
lol, I'll have to remember that one, Goo to you via the zoo, has a nice ring about it...
I am taking the mickey somewhat on Rock to Man, but if you think about it. "It rained on the rocks for millions of years" "Then chemicals leached out of the
rocks" "Which then formed the complex soup" ..... "which eventually became man after billions of years". Hence Rock to man....
There is also that theory that holes in rocks formed cellular walls before cells could form their own cellular walls. I'm taking the mickey somewhat out of that too....
Yes I'm aware that is abiogenesis and evolutionists like to try to draw a line in the sand and say evolution only applies when life got here the reality is different for atheistic evolution. As for theistic evolutionists, where exactly they start their evolution journey varies greatly. To be honest I do applaud theistic evolutionists in their rejection of the atheistic agenda of secular evolutionists because the only thing that could possibly make evolution possible is if it was guided and instrumented by God, probability without this guidance and instrumentation of evolution occurring by natural random means is so small it is zero.
[/QUOTE]
