A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

There is a difference between an appeal to authority and a cite of an authority. It is perfectly valid to specify attributions, but when you go one step further and assert that "because x is an authority y is valid" it is always a logical fallacy.

I'm not sure that YOU get it.For example, in Message 49 of the thread Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God you consistently committed the appeal to authority fallacy but tried to disguise it as cites.In fact what you did was several examples of logical fallacies, taking comments out of context and appeal to authority.The appeal to authority came when you added editorial comments like "Steven Weinberg, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics" and "Paul Davies is a physicist and cosmologist at Arizona State University. In addition to being a popular author, he has won the Kelvin Medal from the Institute of Physics and the Faraday Prize from The Royal Society."Neither of the underlined sections were pertinent to the discussion other as "appeal to authority".

A core from a tree has lots of information, how old it is, what each season was like, when there was a particularly dry or wet, hot or cold year...An ice core has lots of information, how old it is, what each season was like, when there was a particularly dry or wet, hot or cold year, when there were volcanic activities, what the air was like at a given period, ...An air bubble in amber has lots of information ...

I would even go so far as to say that it might be possible for there to be an honest Creation Scientist as long as that scientist pointed out that (s)he believed in Special Creation despite the overwhelming evidence that all causes are natural, the Evolution is a fact, that the Theory of Evolution is the only model that explains the diversity of life we see around us and that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old; and that there is zero evidence for any Creator or Designer.

Not at all. He can be honest as long as he admits that he is ignoring all of the evidence and believing in Special Creation in spite of the evidence.But of course it has nothing to do with Christianity since most of the recognized chapters of Club Christian oppose Creationism or Intelligent Design.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

It is definitely an error to think that just because something is logical it must be right. Reality trumps logic every time.

I don't think anyone is disputing the former, but I don't see how they could support the position that "God and science are compatible."

What does someone changing their views on something like God have to do with reality or science?