What part of “I don’t know what you mean, can you be more specific” don’t you understand? There are entire reference libraries full of books on just one tiny subject. You have GOT to narrow it down, or I have no way of knowing what I’m supposed to be addressing. Try this. Pretend I’m really really stupid and spell it out for me. What do you want?
OK, let me go back in this thread and pull the quote.
the same quote I pulled when I asked initially for specifics so I could review the proof myself.
Here it is…
Frankly, most educated people know that micro and macro are imaginary constructs. You think there is no evidence of species changing into other species? Sure there is. Some museums have buckets of proof in their gift shops that they give away for free, that’s how common it is. And lets not forget the famous nylon-eating bacteria experiment that gave proof years ago and is continuing to give more and more.
Wow. That was a long quote.
Now then, I asked for specifics so I could review the proof.
You evaded, and then decided you did not know which proof as there could be any number I was referring to (it was a long post, there are so many possibilities to choose from).
So I asked for specifics on all of the proofs you mentioned.
Keep in mind, I am still trying to get answers to review the proofs provided in the second quote above. I see only a few things mentioned, “All of them” is not an unreasonable request.
Let’s look carefully…
“You think there is no evidence of species changing into other species? Sure there is. Some museums have buckets of proof in their gift shops that they give away for free, that’s how common it is.”
Well, there is one proof mentioned.
I guess it is difficult to miss in the vastness of the four sentences.
Let’s see if there are more…
" And lets not forget the famous nylon-eating bacteria experiment that gave proof years ago and is continuing to give more and more."
And there is another.
Both are actually highlighted with the word ‘proof’
It is not difficult to look at what I quoted and what I asked for.
But you keep asking me to be specific.
Is it no wonder I believe evasion to be the operative word here.
This is typically how I see the debate going.
Specifics or proof is asked for of the evolution believing side and instead evasion is provided.
I have been open to viewing evidence for and against evolution.
However I see issues that it simply will never be able to overcome, so the theory is disbelieved by myself.
However it is becoming more and more difficult to believe the pro-evolution side of this debate is being entirely honest when they cannot answer a simple request for proofs.