And as far as going to the links, I have done that many times before. I am not a newbie to this debate, and I've heard all the arguments before. So spare me that I am missing all the "proof."
It's not really a question of how smart you are, it's a question of how intellectually honest and self-critical you are. Ich and PH have bent over backwards to provide you with an understandable explanations of the arguement for evolutionary theory, along with pointers that would take you all the way baok to original sources, if you wish. This response is ingenuous, nasty, and embarassingly undignified in it's irrelevance and unresponsiveness, and general lack of good will.
I'm just a lowly engineer.
Who, unable to defend his own stance with anything much beyond temper tantrums, now begs his deponents to provide him with the juice for an irrelevant ad hominem attack.
be nice if DonH, VadeRetro, and Patrick Henry gave us their occupations so we would know what kind of really smart, advanced science professionals we are dealing with. Thanks in advance.
Not relevant. Either we are presenting you with science's arguments, and the cites lead you to verification of that, or they don't...it's just a matter of looking.
And as far as going to the links, I have done that many times before.
I rather suspect not; if you had, there would be more depth, variety and subtlety to your arguments. I think you are reading talking points from a creationist ammo site somewhere.
I am not a newbie to this debate, and I've heard all the arguments before. So spare me that Iu am missing all the "proof."
There is no such thing as proof in the natural sciences, and since you don't give a tinker's poop about the evidence, it's even more totally irrelevant what our occupations are, isn't it?