Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

Again, this is a monkey see monkey do appeal to authority and an appeal to stone. (Google them if you don't know what they mean, don't just try and talk past these to logical fallacies I have identified in rocket/monkey doo(you) arguement.)

Use something your "expert" has said to refute my objection. Because clearly my time line objection can be the first. He must have encountered these objections when he first posited his conjecture/origins of acts.

Otherwise know you are conceding the arguement via logical fallacy as rocket man has poised himself to do.

I am honest enough to accept that experts in a certain field know more about that field than I do. You are not because you let your bias get the better of you. That's the difference.

via Imgflip Meme Maker

What kind of 'expert' can not be questioned? This is the point I am making, and you are missing. You do not have to be an expert to ask a question or point to a hole in a line of reasoning a so called expert makes.

Otherwise If you can not question an expert's testimony then that is an appeal to authority. Which is one of the logical fallacy I told you to look up and not talk past. I could use these fallacies, and beat you and your line of reasoning stupid with them, if I were wanting to.

you are leaving yourself open accusations of failed reasoning in hopes that you can put me on my heels with your charge "that I'm no expert the way your expert is an expert's expert, in his field of expertise. Fail #2.

I have asked both you and rocket (team rocket if you will) to use your expert's works to answer the time line and observation I have made that refutes the claim he made to a late authorship of luke and acts. Team rocket has so far failed to do so. All I've got so far is just mmore mmeouth, about how I'm not an expert in the way your expert is an expert.

Isn't it time to grow up and act rational? Let's say you quote an expert. I question the findings your go to guy talks about, your job, is not to say "nut-uh, my guys is right and you are a do doo head because you don't agree."

If you quote an "expert" be ready to defend his statement with more of his works you dunce! That is why smart people quote Real Experts! Because they say a lot about a given topic and it is easy to find thier research and support needed to validate any of the claim they make!!! So do your Job and use this guys work to validate the claim he makes, against my questions/observations and time line! Or admit you failed/can only default to logical fallacy when questioned, or admit your "expert" was poorly chosen and he has nothing more on the subject. Or just be quiet and let the adults talk. Or at the very least stop pretending that just because you label someone an 'expert' it means what ever they say is the final word on any subject. What kind of broken mind can't question the word of an 'expert'? WTF are they teaching in our "higher learning" institutions if this is the case?