Why Of course. Consistent with your refrain of "not enough" and "too much!" -- this is "not enough." You need more. You need all of the evidence. The whole of it that exists in archives, libraries, fossil data bases, genome sequences, etc., etc., (and all of it apparently packaged neatly in an impossible to accomplish three sentence post on an internet chat forum.)
But this most recent "I-need-to-see-all-the-evidence" hogwash of yours is just more of your mendacious song-and-dance. You're not in the least interested in the evidence. After all, as you previously complained -- "Ahh, just as I thought. There's mountains of solid evidence, and yet no-one can give me one good evidence." and "How come it has to be 93,000 [journal articles] or nothing?"
Your childish dishonesty in this correspondence notwithstanding, I will provide you (courtesy of Ichneumon, who was at the time responding to a poster playing precisely your ridiculous game) with the following small sample of readily available evidence.
Unfortunately, some of the images in the foregoing link have been lost over time (principally in the "Theropod dinosaur to bird evolutionary transition" section), and a few of the links are presently inoperative. It nevertheless remains a reasonable, summary resourse, with a wide variety of internal links for you to follow and study.
You can also re-acquaint yourself with the main NCBI archive and its ancillary free access archive that I directed you to previously (you remember, the life sciences archives that you bizarrely labled "propoganda sites"), and you can actually make use of their internal search engines on this go around.
You can then read through (and follow the links within) the sites available here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and you can peruse some of the many fossil databases available:
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here.
The foregoing, of course, is just a start, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But once you've familiarized yourself with these resources, get back to me.
You're incorrectly asserting here that evidence is equal to written articles. When I ask for evidence you reply with a list of thousands of articles -- but that's not the same as evidence. If you were to ask me for evidence for creation and I provided a link go a google search for "Evidence for creation" you'd quite likely not be satisfied.
But this most recent "I-need-to-see-all-the-evidence" hogwash of yours is just more of your mendacious song-and-dance.
As long as I'm content to (at most) believe something without knowing it, then I don't need to see the evidence. But I sure hope that scientists don't just claim to know stuff without seeing the evidence.. Honest folks either say "I know it because I saw it" or "I believe it because I heard it from a source I trust." But my experience regarding "Speciation by evolution" has been that lay people take it largely if not entirely by faith. It's looking like many scientists do too.
I will provide you (courtesy of Ichneumon, who was at the time responding to a poster playing precisely your ridiculous game) with the following small sample of readily available evidence.
Thanks. I actually read at least most of that a few days ago. I didn't find anything like evidence. But if there is a certain part that you think is exceptional evidence, I would be glad to re-read it and discuss it. I found lots of people re-speaking popular views on how things happened, but at best I can still only have faith in them -- and then I still won't know but at most would only be able to believe.
The foregoing, of course, is just a start, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But once you've familiarized yourself with these resources, get back to me.
Thanks for the links... but see it looks as if you're giving me thousands and thousands of articles -- more then I could read in a lifetime (or at least a very long time) -- without giving me a clue as to where to start. They aren't all good evidence (I know because I read a few.) Are you saying that you don't know of any good ones but are sure there are some? or are you saying that I have to read them all and devote significant part of my life to studying the topic before I can see the evidence to the point where I can know rather then at best believe?
Straight answers are sometimes very helpful. Sometimes one does need to say to an inquirer "Learn these laws of physics, try them out yourself, then come back and I'll be able to explain it to you."
A few weeks ago I was visiting with good friends, and one of them wanted to know why some hydrogen gas bubbler gimmick wouldn't extend gas mileage like the website claimed. I had to basically say "You need to learn, understand, know and trust the laws of thermodynamics and of conservation of energy. Then I can explain to you why this can't work as advertised."
Sometimes the gap of missing knowledge (not believage) is just to great and it's appropriate to gently explain to someone that they need to learn some set of skills or knowledge (not believage) before they can see the evidence.
Thanks,
-Jesse
PS: Sir, you really needn't insult me as often as you do. It doesn't make your case look any better. Forum posters know by now that someone's not right just because they insult their opponents.