Half of my training in grad school, and for my Ph.D. exams, included specialties in human osteology and fossil man. That's six years of study at the grad level, resulting in a Ph.D., in this field.
That enough for you?
And your training in this field is...? What?
Your background, which lets you tell working professionals much more advanced than I am how to do their jobs, is what?
Or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and read Answers in Guinness in your spare time?
You laid bare the challenge, now lets see your answer.
Her training?
One of many that think that the bible is a textbook.
You, yes. Others? well, so far Ive seen computer techie, business administrator, one with degrees in math and psychology IIRC, even chemistry chemistry prof. That would make him only as qualified as a physicist whose views are dismissed because he's NOT an evolutionary biologist.
My degree is meteorology, as I've made no secret of. I started out as a bio major but quit because of the difficulty I had with chemistry. I crammed 5 years of college into 15 years but finally got my degree. The only field of science that I didn't take any courses in was geology because it wasn't a required course. Less than half the courses I took were the liberal arts, fill in courses, as required by the college, the rest were math and science.
I'm not saying I can tell working professionals much more advanced than I am how to do their jobs. What I'm questioning is why other scientists with PhD's which are not in evolution, are dismissed when they speak against evoution because of that; but people on this forum who might not (and sometimes don't) even have a basic BA are expected to be believed when they speak in favor of it and feel they are free to criticize others for not accepting their unqualified opinion.