That's a completely different statement.

In your first statement, you compared experts to omniscience. Your argument can be interpreted as "experts are not always correct, therefore we shouldn't value their opinion"

The rebuttal was that instead of comparing experts to omniscience, the more appropriate comparison is to the alternative: non-experts. Neither is always correct, but those are the options, and the experts are preferable.

You then mischaracterize this, "experts are correct more often than non-experts" as "experts are correct more often than they are incorrect". That's an entirely different statement. It is not the statement being made in the comment you're replying to.

Was that on purpose, or a mistake?