[steve-b]

You're telling me that you can see germs and atoms?

(No, deducing them from what you see in an instrument doesn't count, unless you accept that equivalent deductions from measuring the age of fossils also counts.)

[William Terrell]

If I said I didn't believe in germs and atoms, the entire scientific world to a man and woman would deluge me with evidence that I, as a layman, could see and understand. Evidence for evolution, for instance evidence of trans-species movement and transitional forms, is not understandable because it is always presented in opaque scientificese.

Many times I have disputed with the lack of transitional forms and evidence from such a translation from one species to another and have had absolute greek dumped on me. When I ask for a simple detail trace in common words, I get no response.

Anything which is true is presentable in a form that anyone can understand. Anyone out here who is pro-evolution should be able to translate that word fog into understandable terms without the need to cut and paste that fog from some website.

Show me the tracing from a one celled animal to a frog, a lizard, bat and a mouse and I might give it some credibility. Don't tell me I don't have the years of some interdisciplinary study and knowledge of biological terms to get it.

Anything that is true can be explained to anyone who is reasonably educated. The fact is, when an effort is made to clearly and simply present the evidence it will become apparent that the evidence is specious and/or has other explanations than the one assigned to it.

If you want me to accept trans-species evolution, you have the responsibility to explain it to me in terms that communicate to me. The notion that all life and ecological systems, including plant life and insects, started and the process guided by dice throws is what I consider an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not a presumption of validity from multi-interpretative possibles.