Is that the now standard for credibility on these threads?
metmom:
All coming from someone who can lay no claim to a degree in science himself.
coldwater:
Is that the now standard for credibility on these threads?
Oh look, another liberal that forgot about all the rules liberals make up for everyone but themselves!
This was all we heard from evos...anyone that disagreed with them didn’t know what they were talking about with our “religious attacks on science” because we didn’t and couldn’t understand what evos were talking about because we weren’t scientists.
Then they were shown:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Complete with scientists trained at and/or teaching at Johns Hopkins, Princeton, MIT and so on, all who very much disagreed with evos.
Hey copldwater, a better question would be:
By what criteria do you measure one’s credibility on these threads when they propose to lecture ANYONE about science, when they clearly don’t have a grasp on science themselves?
As ‘dumb has consistently demonstrated too many times to count.
You mean a degree in science ISN'T required for credibility on these threads?
Then why all the sneering and condemnation of creationists who don't have science degrees speaking on science by the evos?
Let me see if I get this straight.....
If an evo has a science degree and speaks on science, he speaks authoritatively about science because he's a *real* scientist.
If an creationist has a science degree and speaks on science, he can't speak authoritatively about science because he's not a *real* scientist.
If an evo doesn't have a science degree and speaks on science, he speaks authoritatively about science because ??????
So, in light of your question, it's clear that the criteria about whether someone is qualified to speak authoritatively on science is not whether they actually have a degree in science or have been trained in it, but rather that they tow the evo party line.