"I did not commit the genetic fallacy, because I did not say that the argument of the source, Eddie Snipes of the Exchanged Life Outreach, was wrong because it was posted by Eddie Snipes. ..What I did do was to attack the credibility of the work, by pointing out the two more ridiculous things in it.."
You pointed out no such thing. This is exactly and precisely what you wrote:
Therefore what I wrote still stands: "The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief.
If a controversial claim could be established as true because it is supported by experts, then contradictory beliefs would be true, which is absurd.
Do you know what a genetic fallacy is? One can't legitimately judge a proposition or belief by the person who is stating it, rather, one must judge it through the arguments for and against it. Please don't expect those capable of critical thought to take you seriously if you use ad hominem in place of valid argumentation." ~ Matchett-PI
"Finally, since you seem so enthralled by logical fallacies, I'll point out a couple. When these are made by your creationist cohorts, as I am sure they will be, I trust you'll be as enthusiastic to point them out as you were in my case:
"Appeal to Authority: "If the Bible says the Flood happened, then it happened." Appeal to fear: "If you don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, you're going to hell." ......blah, blah, blah ....Again, these are just a few of the standard creationist logical fallacies. I trust you'll point them out as they pop up."
Once again you show your ignorance. You seem to be unaware that all creationists aren't religious kooks that are the mirror image of blind-faith Darwinists, such as yourself.
Don't embarrass yourself
My only embarrassing moment in recent memory was being forced to admit to a friend who is a moderate voter that some conservatives actually do want to teach a 4000-year-old Mesopotamian creation myth as fact in science class, and that the people who espoused this belief were not children.
* * *
"I did not commit the genetic fallacy, because I did not say that the argument of the source, Eddie Snipes of the Exchanged Life Outreach, was wrong because it was posted by Eddie Snipes. ..What I did do was to attack the credibility of the work, by pointing out the two more ridiculous things in it.."
You pointed out no such thing.
Yes, I did. If you didn't understand it, then that shows that you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, not that I didn't point out the silliness in Reverend Fast Eddie's article.
Did I state, "The two most ridiculous thing in this source are..."?? No. I just went ahead and criticized it by pointing out the two most ridiculous things in it: citing to Chuck Colson and Jay Gould's fantastic "quantum jump" theory. Why are they ridiculous? Anyone who doesn't already know that Chuck Colson and Jay Gould have absolutely no authority to discuss the merits of an argument on evolution should seriously consider reading a science book...
***
Once again you show your ignorance. You seem to be unaware that all creationists aren't religious kooks that are the mirror image of blind-faith Darwinists, such as yourself.
Some definitely are. Creationists who assert, as historical fact, that the Earth was created on a Wednesday morning in October of 4004, B.C. are religious kooks. But you're right, not all creationists are religious kooks.
But every creationist does argue from an unproven and unprovable premise: that God or some supernatural creative power exists. That takes "creationism" out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion. If you want to have a theological debate, that's one thing. But don't assert that the science of evolution is factually incorrect because it offends your religious sensibilities, and don't force the state to spread your doctrine in schools.
And as for whether I am a "blind-faith Darwinist": I have neither discussed by faith, my views on Darwinism, nor such things as the work of people such as Mayr, Gould, Eldredge and Dawkins. So you can not know that I am "blind-faith Darwinist". You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.
That is also committing a logical fallacy. It's called talking out of your ass.