Your pompous sanctimonious attitudes concerning dissent need to cease.
"Difficult as it may be, it is vitally important to separate argument sources and styles from argument content. In argument the medium is not the message." - author unknownAllow me to be clear, js1138, the remainder of my post is directed at Coyoteman (take it for whatever you will).
Firstly, it is abundently clear to me that your post (#5) is egregiously guilty of an attempt to foist a Genetic Fallacy on the unwashed masses. This is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value.
Secondly, your post appears to be a protest of sorts respecting Appeal to Misleading Authority in that the "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is this is now cliched television commercial about some actor stating: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." And then actor then proceedes to recommend some brand of medicine.
Well, I'm not an actor, and I've never stayed in a Holidy Inn Express, but I can recognize Poisoning the Well when I see it.
"Poisoning the Well" is not (strictly speaking), a logical fallacy in that it's an actual type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set for the unwary to engage in Argumentum ad hominem. As with all forms of the ad hominem, one should keep in mind that an argument can and must stand or fall on its own, regardless of who makes it.
Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a "well-poisoning" either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominem, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets "Poisoning the Well" apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.
You did this early (post #5), and you did this quite subtly, and you did this several times. Your accumen concerning devious debating tactics is commended. However, I can not confer to you any measure of respect concerning that. In my view, perhaps you would increase your debating accumen through use of an "ad hominem argument". That is, in your refutation or rebutal, employ as one (or more) of your premisses those that are accepted by the opposition to argue for your position. In other words, use premisses that your oppostion accepts — whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective. Not only will you obtain credibility in your opponents view, but it definitely will make you a better debater.
Let me tell you something: we don't need more intelligent, geniuses with puffed up self-centered esteem. Or perhaps the tiny clenched-fisted temper tantrums of a minority should not be listened to because they're just too tiring to deal with, eh? I have none less than 5 links to those asking for prayers for what I'm certain your rational, reasonablness of various categorizations of philosophical sciences can meke everybody feel good.
I am not sure what the prayers "5 links" means...
The rest of your post is a study in logic, while ignoring the facts.
You trash my post #5 as a "Genetic Fallacy on the unwashed masses" but you offer no substantive rebuttal. Here is the post:
All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.But there you encounter the problem: ID is religious belief masquerading as science. It has made a lot of claims, but it has produced no evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny. Even Behe has backed away from most of his earlier claims.
Look at the efforts of the Dyscovery Institute in support of ID. Check out their blogs. Most are authored by lawyers, with an occasional English major or journalist for diversity. Where is the science? What a joke!
Are you claiming that ID as "dissent" brings scientific evidence?
Are you claiming that ID is not religious belief masquerading as science?
Are you claiming that ID has produced evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny?
Are you claiming that Behe has not backed away from most of his earlier claims in his recent book?
You have spun a long and interesting post on the rules of logic, but you have not linked that logic to the real world (my post) in any substantive way.
Good debate tactics, but lousy science.
We are back to where I started: All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.