No, they chose mockery as a superior form of understanding to mere scientific observations & explanations.
And you're OK with that, right?
Then you should look at my posts as a form of mockery, utterly superior to mere science or reason, and requiring no real supporting data.
I mean, if it's good enough for the goose, why not the gander?
papertyger: "As I said, this is an old tactic from avocational evolutionists, play scientific purist until the argument gets down to the 'nuts and bolts,' then throw out some supposedly confuting reference buried in sources that require far more training than the advocate has to falsify."
Seriously, none of the books I've recommended here require advanced training to read & comprehend.
They're all written at the level of somewhat informed laymen, providing history & overviews without going too deep into the scientific "nuts & bolts".
They do provide their own references for more serious students.
papertyger: "If you can't summarize and defend the thesis, you're claiming a certain street exists then throwing a phone book to the opposition to "prove you wrong."
That is NOT how legitimate participants in a debate behave."
I'm surprised, but glad, to see you consider the mockers on this thread not legitimate.
I only wish you'd tell them directly yourself, instead of as a bank-shot through yours truly, BroJoeK.
Seriously, many posters on this thread seem to have no idea where the science is today, as opposed to ideas of, say, George Wald in 1954.
Read some recent books and you'll be better informed.
Again seriously, as for answering the sharpest of your sharp-shooter questions, I would first ask why, while being uninformed about real science, you'd consider such questions legitimate?
You have yet to even bump into “real Science” in the dark by accident.
What you push as “real science” is mere manipulation of guesses about the un-seeable.
.