Now that depends on who gets to judge credentials doesn't it. If seen these little games played on these forums long enough that I'm not taking your bait. Whatever source I cite, professors, Nobel laureates, published and peer reviewed papers, heck even the burning bush, will be ridiculed.
Meanwhile, complete crap from creationist websites and unattributed wikipedia article will be cited as authoritative. As long as you have access to Google you will always find an "expert" who agrees with you.
Interesting.
First, you disclaim any intention of taking my “bait,” then you take the bait. What “bait” is this that I offer? Let’s begin there.
“Now that depends on who gets to judge credentials doesn't it.”
Credentials are what they are. If the Scientific Community accepts as scientifically authoritative the statements of . . . oh say, Richard Dawkins (according even to Wikipedia) . . . then why would I challenge that judgment? It does not follow, however, that I am obliged to accept any conclusions off those scientific assertions as respects philosophy, religion, education, public policy, politics generally, or any subject not directly associated with Science. And, of course, even all scientific assertions are subject to further discovery.
“Whatever source I cite, professors, Nobel laureates, published and peer reviewed papers, heck even the burning bush, will be ridiculed.”
Suck it up, Cupcake, and take your sympathy play down the street.