i did post yesterday, but the internet failed.
bill. maybe my understanding of logical fallacies is not textbook, so i will explain....probably again....what i mean by it.
when discussing the truth or otherwise of a position, i am assuming that the specifics of the arguments need to be addressed. it seems to me that you, and most of the skeptics here prefer to major on what most of the experts believe/say is fact. when the specifics are bypassed and the argument is experts and consensus, i see that as appeal to authority,and appeal to numbers.
observations =
you, yourself, refuse the claims of experts...because they are creationist.
evolutionists themselves have a bottom line, non negotiables.
consensus is the enemy of science. otherwise progress would not have been made.
the consensus of most of history, in most of the world was creation.
for all we know, the growing weight of evidence may yet turn the consensus away from darwinism....though widespread acceptance of biblical creation seems unlikely.
so, we can discuss specifics ,.....or you might be telling me once again that this is the last time you are going to say this.....-grinning-