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.
Your request that I have delivered to your door a convoy of fossil specimens, a full laboratory for genetic testing and sequencing, and a team of scientists who will conduct original research in your living room while you snack on corn chips, is respectfully declined. Those nefarious "written articles" put out by the vast conspiracy of evilutionists will just have to do.
But I sure hope that scientists don't just claim to know stuff without seeing the evidence
Good lord. I honestly thought you had plumbed the depths of your stupidity in your prior posts. Obviously, I was wrong.
I actually read at least most of that a few days ago. I didn't find anything like evidence.
Of course you didn't. After all, it was nothing but that strange and scary "written stuff" that your paranoid delusions tell you not to 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.
Right. Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will go to work.
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.
And the tennis ball returns from the "not enough" side of the net to the "too much!" side of the net. Back and forth we go.
Straight answers are sometimes very helpful.
Straight answers to what? You haven't asked any questions. And no, "gimme all the ebidence in a sippy cup" is not a question.
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?
You're big on these all or nothing banalities, aren't you. All you really have to do is stop perfecting the ass-dent in your Laz-E-Boy and educate yourself. If you're unwilling to do that, then quit complaining about your ignorance.
PS: Sir, you really needn't insult me as often as you do.
Good grief, why not? Your posts contain nothing but insults under a thin veneer of feigned inquiry, so responding in kind is perfectly appropriate.
But in the end you're right. Enough of this. Go play your idiotic game with someone else.