<<Such approach might have its usefulness in judicial circles but not in
scientific circles were evidence is addressed on its merrits not the
merrits of the author. Arguments from (lack of) authority one way or
another are just not very scientific.>>
It's not an argument from (lack of) authority. It's an argument from the
author not knowing what he's talking about on a very crucial point.
I mean, if someone was holding himself out as an expert on baseball, and
wrote, "The all-time home run leader, Mickey Mantle, is an example to us all,"
wouldn't you question his bona fides? Wouldn't you think twice about accepting
his opinions on other parts of the game? Of course you would.
<<Jim: Again, where is the testable detail in this position? Nowhere.
There is no need for testable detail.>>
Sure, let's throw out the scientific method. No problem there. Especially when
the claims of evolution are held to account.
<< If someone states A could not have happened and I show
a plausible way A could have happened then it is not required to actually
show the details of how it happened.>>
That's even better. So there is no way to test the validity of this
"plausible" position. This is great. Let me give it a go. One can imagine a
pathway leading from week-old cheese to mice. Please don't ask me for the
details, you don't need them. I've imagined the path. So here is a "plausible"
conclusion: Rodents come from ricotta.
I love science.
Jim