[jnaujok]

No, I have no hard evidence, since your measure is "were you there."

I have only the incredibly circumstantial evidence of massive fossil records, ice cores, radio isotope dating, the fact that Oxygen would vanish in a few million years without a constant source of it on the planet, massive evidence of anaerobic bacteria and life forms before this event, and the complete absence of them afterwards, the arrival of whole new forms of life that used photosynthesis rather than metal-acid reactions as energy sources, and then another set that suddenly use redox reactions for the first time in the fossil record, thousands of scientific papers, thousands of books, millions of established scientific facts and researchers agreeing, the fact that Oxygen in inorganic chemistry is a corrosive, quickly absorbed gas that almost never, ever occurs in its elemental form in nature.

But no, no hard evidence.

[microgood]

I have only the incredibly circumstantial evidence of massive fossil records, ice cores, radio isotope dating, the fact that Oxygen would vanish in a few million years without a constant source of it on the planet, massive evidence of anaerobic bacteria and life forms before this event, and the complete absence of them afterwards, the arrival of whole new forms of life that used photosynthesis rather than metal-acid reactions as energy sources, and then another set that suddenly use redox reactions for the first time in the fossil record, thousands of scientific papers, thousands of books, millions of established scientific facts and researchers agreeing, the fact that Oxygen in inorganic chemistry is a corrosive, quickly absorbed gas that almost never, ever occurs in its elemental form in nature.

These kind of statements are why people need to understand the limitations of science. You talk about scientific facts but there really are none about the past that are facts.

For example, isochron or radiometric dating values are based on quite a few assumptions and guesses about the nature of the rocks around the fossil, and the formulas for determining decay and half-lives of elements are based on highly unstable elements in nuclear reactors that have nanosecond life times so even dating a fossil is making hundreds of untestable assumptions about the age of the fossil.

That is why scientific theories can never be proven, because science has to make assumptions that cannot be proven just to get started.

What is wierd about theories like evolution that deal with the past, most of your "evidence" is itself theoretical and since none of it can be tested, the more assumptions that are made, the shakier it gets.

The age of every fossil ever found is quite theoretical. Basically everything you stated above as evidence is theoretical in nature and the whole theory of evolution is built on theories backing up other theories.

The sciences that produce results are ones that are testable in real time against nature today. Evolutionary theory, at least in the historical perspective, is an exercise in speculation.