That's called a false dichotomy or as I suspected an illogical argument intentionally hidden with pseudo fanciful language.

No, it's not a false dichotomy logical fallacy and you using "fanciful language" doesn't make it so. I literally gave you the definition of a scientific theory and it said the exact same thing. Here's the algorithm: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635141/bin/cbe0010600110006.jpg

Now explain to me how does one go about formulating a scientific theory about the origin of man using that chart?

Every statement ever made in an English philosophical or scientific discussion consisted of the same twenty six letters you and I are using now. Attempting to gatekeep philosophy and science as subjects is a ridiculous thing to do.

What? This doesn't follow at all - it's a composition fallacy. What does all arguments being made of letters have to do with the argument being made? "All math problems use some sort of numbers and letters everyone uses so mathematicians shouldn't gatekeep math as we all apparently understand it equally well".

Stating the fact that people need to have a basic level of understanding of a subject in order to argue about it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping would be "you're not an accredited expert in x, so you can't possibly have knowledge of anything x related".

That's called a false dichotomy or as I suspected an illogical argument intentionally hidden with pseudo fanciful language.

No, it's not a false dichotomy logical fallacy and you using "fanciful language" doesn't make it so. I literally gave you the definition of a scientific theory and it said the exact same thing. Here's the algorithm: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635141/bin/cbe0010600110006.jpg

Now explain to me how does one go about formulating a scientific theory about the origin of man using that chart?

Every statement ever made in an English philosophical or scientific discussion consisted of the same twenty six letters you and I are using now. Attempting to gatekeep philosophy and science as subjects is a ridiculous thing to do.

What? This doesn't follow at all - it's a composition fallacy. What does all arguments being made of letters have to do with the argument being made? Stating the fact that people need to have a basic level of understanding of a subject in order to argue about it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping would be "you're not an accredited expert in x, so you can't possibly have knowledge of anything x related".

That's called a false dichotomy or as I suspected an illogical argument intentionally hidden with pseudo fanciful language.

No, it's not a false dichotomy logical fallacy and you using "fanciful language" doesn't make it so. I literally gave you the definition of a scientific theory and it said the exact same thing. Here's the algorithm: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635141/bin/cbe0010600110006.jpg

Now explain to me how does one go about formulating a scientific theory about the origin of man using that chart?

Every statement ever made in an English philosophical or scientific discussion consisted of the same twenty six letters you and I are using now. Attempting to gatekeep philosophy and science as subjects is a ridiculous thing to do.

Stating the fact that people need to have a basic level of understanding of a subject in order to argue about it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping would be "you're not an accredited expert in x, so you can't possibly have knowledge of anything x related".