How come it has to be 93,000 or nothing?
It doesn't. There's a search engine in that archive. There are links to supplemental materials in that archive. There's your library, other electronic archives, numerous other links and electronically available publications, books and texts at your local bookstore, books and texts available through Amazon and other web-based booksellers, and subscription and non-subscription periodicals. Exercise your research skills, which appear to have atrophied. Go forth. Learn. And stop whining.
Ahh, just as I thought. There's mountains of solid evidence, and yet no-one can give me one good evidence.
But I do see one evidence -- when the inquirer finds himself the recipient of ad hominem arguments he has a reasonable chance of being correct in his argument!
About the only time I see sober grown men insulting eachother is when the instultee's argument is correct so the only thing then left to attack is the messenger.
After long enough of a person hearing "There's mountains of solid evidence" and after long enough of being insulted for asking "what is the best evidence," a thinking person is quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that there isn't mountains of solid evidence.
-Jesse
Oh brother. Still whining that no one will take you by the hand and lead you to the library. Get off your sofa. You can also look around on this very site for information and links, such as that available at this post. There are many more by the same author.
But I do see one evidence -- when the inquirer finds himself the recipient of ad hominem arguments he has a reasonable chance of being correct in his argument!
There's nothing "ad hominem" about suggesting that you actually assist yourself and do a little leg work. And your self-imposed ignorance is no indication of your correctness.
I searched a bit on the nice government website you gave me a link for.
Good for you. It's refreshing to exercise your brain, isn't it?
Found some interesting things. It almost looks like evolution is a religion -- a government approved religion!
And your basis for this conclusion is the following?
I searched for "Intelligent Design" and found a few interesting ones. Titles that one wouldn't expect on a scientific government site. Like, for example the title Don’t be stupid about intelligent design Amazing! or perhaps this one: Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Wow! A call to action? That doesn't sound very scientific.
My goodness. You mean to tell me that in an archive of journal articles (otherwise known as a library), you found something you disagree with? Why, that archive should be shut down. Or at the very least the government should censor its content in accordance with your personal religious beliefs. It's only just.
I can see that such a website as I've linked to above is much more a propaganda mill rather then a scientific research resource.
A description of that "propaganda mill":
PubMed is a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine that includes over 17 million citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles back to the 1950s. PubMed includes links to full text articles and other related resources.
I suppose it's obvious now why you won't get off your duff and go to the library. Libraries are nothing but "propaganda mills." After all, there's subversive stuff in there that you don't like, and we can't have that in our brave new world.
I'll also add that this persistent refrain of yours is not only disingenuous, it is juvenily disingenuous.
In my profession, I deal with the cumulative effect of evidence on a regular basis. Standing alone, a single fact or evidentiary data point is rarely if ever dispositive or even persuasive. With the addition of evidence, however, inferences become more compelling, and it is precisely the cumulative effect of multiple evidentiary data points that permits courts and juries to draw dispositive conclusions.
This is such a self-evident process that no court or juror I have ever encountered has proposed your absurd iteration -- that the beach must be ignored because no single grain of sand demonstrates its existence.
You really should not be surprised that your obvious, if tedious, game is greeted with disparagement. When any singular evidence is dismissed as "not enough," and multiple evidences are dismissed as "too much," there's not much point in continuing the discussion.