Evidence of God in the world?

[Dave RP]

I think you somehow missed the point of the whole lesson. I can conclude not only that you have a bias - you are also not very good at reasoning. Now that can indeed be proved by an IQ TEST.

In other words - you wouldn't see the Evidence even if it smacked you in the face


I've gone past thinking I'm in a Coma - I think I am in suspended animation but capable of conscious thought

Prove I'm not in suspended animation and all this is a figment of my imagination !

I am not sure why you’re throwing out impossible challenges, let’s ask how I can prove I’m not part of your imagination. I’ll say because I personally feel, have emotions, feel pain, do things.....

If it’s all in your imagination how is my life happening when you don’t know what I’m doing?

However I can’t prove anything about reality if it’s all part of your imagination can I?

 

[Mountainmike]

So have you looked at ANY of the evidence I suggested you do?
You write a thread questioning evidence then ignore it all when someone suggests some!
I refuted what you said.
So Was the question genuine?

alexandrina da costa was a woman paralysed for life who, from what I read, apart from being bed bound for decades was not at all remarkable.

tixtla eucharistic miracle was investigated by a catholic friendly "scientist"

Lights in the sky..... sorry nope - not evidence of anything apart from your incredulity in my opinion.

Don't Catholics still believe that they eat the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus at the Eucharist, or was that dropped?

 

[Dave RP]

So have you looked at ANY of the evidence I suggested you do?
You write a thread questioning evidence then ignore it all when someone suggests some!
I refuted what you said.
So Was the question genuine?

All my questions are genuine, but miracles are ten a penny in all religions - you check out Islamic miracles, they are numerous and well witnessed.

If those miracles are really true all you’re doing is proving that the Christian god is also the Muslim god, and all the other dieties in the world share the sam god.

Maybe they do....... and dogma is the issue?

 

[Mountainmike]

It Speaks volumes you ask for evidence, then don't look at it.

The rest of your post a complete non sequitur.

Much of the evidence presented for these, physical and forensic. Any amount of forgeries don't make a genuine artwork a forgery,

All my questions are genuine, but miracles are ten a penny in all religions - you check out Islamic miracles, they are numerous and well witnessed.

If those miracles are really true all you’re doing is proving that the Christian god is also the Muslim god, and all the other dieties in the world share the sam god.

Maybe they do....... and dogma is the issue?

 

[gaara4158]

Not total absence of evidence : indeed a lot more than you think.

First to say Christians are Not obliged to believe in so called miraculous phenomena, indeed that is not the basis of faith. But as a scientist and having studied many phenomena , I say the evidence is much and compelling.

Since it features elsewhere in threads I have written of late, I will list a few of those.

1/ Fatima - the prophecy not the apparition.
Months before an apparition said come on Oct 13 - 1917
and "God will perform a miracle that all will see and believe!"

On that day, in that place, 100000 witnesses many sceptics, including professional witnesses and authorities who wanted to wipe out religion and debunk it , and a secular press , ended up confirming it. Both prophecy and fulfilment.

The sun danced, emitted bands of colour and was seen to fall. Torrential rain earlier caused mud which dried instantly. It wasn't mass hysteria, it was witnessed from miles ( furthest was 20) and by those distant who had not heard of the prophecy. Including by many skeptics.

Sceptics focus on rationalising the phenomenon. They miss the point. It was extraordinary, not seen before or since, in Portugal, and happened exactly when and where it was prophesied. No explanation is possible.

2/ Same lady prophesied in 1917 that " God is offended, and unless man changed his ways , " know that an unknown light will herald a worse war". On Jan 25 1939 curtains of red light were witnesses across much of the northern hemisphere , reported in all national newspapers. Reported as an aurora, which are normally green and limited, this was red , across many countries as far as Africa and far more similar to noted nuclear weapon aurora.
This was within days of Hitler threatening Poland and Stalin deciding to join the war.

Same lady predicted that Russia ( which had yet to become a functioning state, let alone the threat it became) - would spread its errrors over the world. How could the children who witnessed the lady make that up?

But there are masses of others..
I referenced in Portugal
3 - the controlled trial certified inedia of Alexandria da costa
4 - the extraordinary behaviour of doves at bombarral
5 - the scientifically analysed statue of Akita weeping, and the worrying messages associated. Same lady now predicts a worse war still.
6 - the forensic analysis of Eucharistic miracles at tixtla, sokolka, legnica, lanciano and buenos airies. Life and flesh where there was none.
7 - the forensic analysis of the statue of Cochabamba,
8 - the prophesied and analysed and filmed stigmata of Katya rivas. The almost instant healing of wounds as much a medical mystery, as the stigmata,
9 - the writings of stigmatic Therese Neumann gramattically flawless in ancient languages apeasant can never have known. Indeed Katya Rivas writings, the witness speed and continuity no author can match,
10 - the medical mystery that is incorruption of such as bernadette.
11 - indeed the forensic investigation of shroud and sudarium, and the impossible to explain image on it,
Forget the junk RC testing, long disproved.
12 - the impossible to duplicate real image apparition at zeitoun, even now science cannot duplicate it, and never will with conventional science. Witnessed by millions, of all faith and none, all walks of life, over years.
13 the vision of a mediaeval bedridden nun in Belgium, that led to locating a site in turkey, the house of Mary " panaghia capouli" , describing it as it was 2000 years before,on,y because of the vision was it found, abs only by digging was the foundation revealed in exact correspondence with the vision.
How was consciousness achieved of 2000 years before?


In many cases, These are serious forensic labs reporting, whose voices in criminal trials are accepted as fact.

No Christian is obliged to believe the above.
As a scientist used to analysing data, I find them hard to discount and impossible to explain. Now or future.

Need I go on?

It is problematic that you as a scientist deem these things impossible to explain when a Google search for any one of these supposed miracles will include possible explanations for them.

 

[Mountainmike]

It is problematic that you as a scientist deem these things impossible to explain when a Google search for any one of these supposed miracles will include possible explanations for them.

I suggest to you - as to many - to study the actual evidence not always illinformed (and often irrational) sceptic views of them.

As example take joe nickell on the shroud with his silly shroud " fake" image, his " possible explanation " which

1/ bears no relation to actual shroud chemistry 2/ offers no explanation for the 3D distortions, 3/ fails to account for the pathology 4/ fails even simple questions like " if it is faked that way - why is there no image under the blood stains"?. I doubt if he even looked at the evidence to know that.
Noting that 5/ the bunk RC date is now agreed discredited 6/ other controlled physiochemical dates are consistent first century
7/ the kicker : the only way the image chemistry and morphology has been replicated is high energy short period coherent radiation (uv laser) burst or high energy discharge ( proper science, not like nickell)
8/ proven forensic compatibility with the sudarium of oviedo , that shows the pre and post mortem paThology consistent with crucifixion. A Madrid forensic Lab said so.

Meanwhile nickell still hangs on to 8/ the provably false date, and the only other evidence he has is 9/ hearsay of a bishop whose timing demonstrates even the hearsay is false, and the only other thing he cites is 10/ another cuckoo called mccrone whose claim to fame is misstating authenticity of Vinland map. Reliable huh! But that's what you will find on skeptic sites.

I prefer science to sceptic ranting.
So since a body centric burst of coherent energy is the only current plausible hypothesis . Question for you - What did it? Or where did a first century forger get a UV laser? Coming to which where did he plug it in?

Nickels comments on such as a blood sample are even sillier.
I prefer forensics instead.

So atheists are either gullible, or don't seem to care how false the debunking is on sceptic sites so long as someone pretends to debunk such things.

In short I trust some of them because i am a scientiest and have researched the sources and because some stand scientific scrutiny - and sceptic sites are complete hogwash.

So will you look at the data or not?

As einstein said " common sense is the net sum of all prejudice"

It should concern atheists that There is far more forensic evidence for life from Eucharistic miracles, than by a abiogenesis of first cell from random chemistry.

The reason the op says " no evidence" is he never researched it, seemingly won't.

 

[gaara4158]

I suggest to you - as to many - to study the actual evidence not always illinformed (and often irrational) sceptic views of them.

As example take joe nickell on the shroud with his silly shroud " fake" image, his " possible explanation " which

1/ bears no relation to actual shroud chemistry 2/ offers no explanation for the 3D distortions, 3/ fails to account for the pathology 4/ fails even simple questions like " if it is faked that way - why is there no image under the blood stains"?. I doubt if he even looked at the evidence to know that.
Noting that 5/ the bunk RC date is now agreed discredited 6/ other controlled physiochemical dates are consistent first century
7/ the kicker : the only way the image chemistry and morphology has been replicated is high energy short period coherent radiation (uv laser) burst or high energy discharge ( proper science, not like nickell)
8/ proven forensic compatibility with the sudarium of oviedo , that shows the pre and post mortem paThology consistent with crucifixion. A Madrid forensic Lab said so.

Meanwhile nickell still hangs on to 8/ the provably false date, and the only other evidence he has is 9/ hearsay of a bishop whose timing demonstrates even the hearsay is false, and the only other thing he cites is 10/ another cuckoo called mccrone whose claim to fame is misstating authenticity of Vinland map. Reliable huh! But that's what you will find on skeptic sites.

I prefer science to sceptic ranting.
So since a body centric burst of coherent energy is the only current plausible hypothesis . Question for you - What did it? Or where did a first century forger get a UV laser? Coming to which where did he plug it in?

Nickels comments on such as a blood sample are even sillier.
I prefer forensics instead.

So atheists are either gullible, or don't seem to care how false the debunking is on sceptic sites so long as someone pretends to debunk such things.

In short I trust some of them because i am a scientiest and have researched the sources and because some stand scientific scrutiny - and sceptic sites are complete hogwash.

So will you look at the data or not?

As einstein said " common sense is the net sum of all prejudice"

It should concern atheists that There is far more forensic evidence for life from Eucharistic miracles, than by a abiogenesis of first cell from random chemistry.

The reason the op says " no evidence" is he never researched it, seemingly won't.

This response suggests a double-standard on your part. Just a few posts back you were insisting that the abundance of fake miracles doesn't mean there are no true miracles... Now, we see you taking a single skeptic's analysis that you find lacking as a sign that there are no good skeptical analyses. On the contrary, as I told you, many scientific hypotheses exist for the origin of the Shroud. Have you researched each of them? If you have, it's odd that you focus so deeply on just one skeptic's possible explanation.

Let alone the fact that even if none of these explanations are demonstrated to be true, you still have all your work ahead of you in demonstrating that these "miracles" really are the work of the god you believe in. As a scientist, surely you're aware of this? The null hypothesis is not "god did it."

 

[Mountainmike]

My suggestion is you look at the evidence, if you want the truth,

I know the " usual " skeptic sites that come up when you ( as you said ) Google because atheists are generally too lazy to go beyond them, so I often recognise the actual quotes. The sites are so lazy they quote each other, I also know the main contributors to the sites and have bought some of their books. So I know how pathetic most of their research and reasoning is - the reason I cited Nickell.
I prefer original sources because I am a scientist,


The double standard is with those who pretend their atheism is consequence of scientific reasoning or critical thinking when most do neither. Most base views on prejudice, which they try hide with sophistry.

Anyway your choice.

But don't dare say there is no evidence until you research what there is : even on this thread as simple example I posted the medical reports of Alexandria da costa, that atheist doctors said was beyond the power of science to explain. None have even commented on it.

Will you be the first?

. Of the phenomena I cited many credible forensic labs are involved, whose reports I have. But then that's the view of science which I prefer to sceptic rants.

It's fascinating that on a thread about evidebce atheists never want to discuss evidence, only apriori prejudice. Many are incapable of learning anything their minds are far too closed.

This response suggests a double-standard on your part. Just a few posts back you were insisting that the abundance of fake miracles doesn't mean there are no true miracles... Now, we see you taking a single skeptic's analysis that you find lacking as a sign that there are no good skeptical analyses. On the contrary, as I told you, many scientific hypotheses exist for the origin of the Shroud. Have you researched each of them? If you have, it's odd that you focus so deeply on just one skeptic's possible explanation.

Let alone the fact that even if none of these explanations are demonstrated to be true, you still have all your work ahead of you in demonstrating that these "miracles" really are the work of the god you believe in. As a scientist, surely you're aware of this? The null hypothesis is not "god did it."

 

[gaara4158]

My suggestion is you look at the evidence, if you want the truth,

I know the " usual " skeptic sites that come up when you ( as you said ) Google because atheists are generally too lazy to go beyond them, so I often recognise the actual quotes. The sites are so lazy they quote each other, I also know the main contributors to the sites and have bought some of their books. So I know how pathetic most of their research and reasoning is - the reason I cited Nickell.
I prefer original sources because I am a scientist,


The double standard is with those who pretend their atheism is consequence of scientific reasoning or critical thinking when most do neither. Most base views on prejudice, which they try hide with sophistry.

Anyway your choice.

But don't dare say there is no evidence until you research what there is : even on this thread as simple example I posted the medical reports of Alexandria da costa, that atheist doctors said was beyond the power of science to explain. None have even commented on it.

Will you be the first?

. Of the phenomena I cited many credible forensic labs are involved, whose reports I have. But then that's the view of science which I prefer to sceptic rants.

It's fascinating that on a thread about evidebce atheists never want to discuss evidence, only apriori prejudice. Many are incapable of learning anything their minds are far too closed.

Yes, Wikipedia is a notorious skeptic website. How dare I consult it.

You claim that scientists cannot explain something. Therefore, God? Not very scientific of you.

I can’t comment on why most atheists take that position. I, an atheist, am examining your position and finding it full of bias amid rants decrying the very same thing in atheists. It’s not productive.

 

[Mountainmike]

You don't look at original evidence.
Wiki is not authority. I and you can write what we like there.
You cannot be scientifically minded and do research that way.

The difference between us is I prefer science, you prefer apriori prejudice: because On a thread about evidence you don't mention it once.! No wonder you believe what you do.

More Importantly I understand what science is and what science models can tell you and what they can't. Also the definitions of science. Abiogenesis - first cell from random chemistry - doesn't qualify as valid hypothesis even, despite how much it is pimped by sceptics. It is pure belief, I might even share, but at least I understand the status.

If you examined the cases I suggest you would see the theist link. Have you looked at the evidence I suggested for Alexandrina or her background?
The case for Eucharistic miracles is forensics , supporting one of the prime dogmas of Christianity.

Eg - ignoring the unscientific hogwash on on sceptic sites : the science case for the shroud is that it is indeed a first century relic which together with sudarium depicts the pre and post mortem pathology of a crucifixion victim and method identical to that documented for Christ, a case unique in literature. The body picture chemistry with 3D aspects has only ever been replicated by high energy short burst radiation, UV laser or discharge.

So science question for you - why does a dead body produce a short coherent high energy burst of radiation
And where did a forger get a UV laser from? Or plug it in for that matter? Or anticipate the photography that later showed the image? Or put blood stains onto a cloth then make the image? Or anticipate 20th century understanding of pathology to mimic that too on the sudarium? The idea of fake is ridiculous: only atheist prejudice demands it is fake.

Every case I suggest has substantial inexplicable evidence, much of it forensic and has a clear theist link. I suggest you look at it. Then make up your mind, is a good order. So far you make up your mind before looking.

Unless you care about evidence , you prove apriori prejudice, no point in further replies till you do.

Yes, Wikipedia is a notorious skeptic website. How dare I consult it.

You claim that scientists cannot explain something. Therefore, God? Not very scientific of you.

I can’t comment on why most atheists take that position. I, an atheist, am examining your position and finding it full of bias amid rants decrying the very same thing in atheists. It’s not productive.

 

[gaara4158]

You don't look at original evidence.
Wiki is not authority. I and you can write what we like there.
You cannot be scientifically minded and do research that way.

The difference between us is I prefer science, you prefer apriori prejudice: because On a thread about evidence you don't mention it once.! No wonder you believe what you do.

More Importantly I understand what science is and what science models can tell you and what they can't. Also the definitions of science. Abiogenesis - first cell from random chemistry - doesn't qualify as valid hypothesis even, despite how much it is pimped by sceptics. It is pure belief, I might even share, but at least I understand the status.

If you examined the cases I suggest you would see the theist link. Have you looked at the evidence I suggested for Alexandrina or her background?
The case for Eucharistic miracles is forensics , supporting one of the prime dogmas of Christianity.

Eg - ignoring the unscientific hogwash on on sceptic sites : the science case for the shroud is that it is indeed a first century relic which together with sudarium depicts the pre and post mortem pathology of a crucifixion victim and method identical to that documented for Christ, a case unique in literature. The body picture chemistry with 3D aspects has only ever been replicated by high energy short burst radiation, UV laser or discharge.

So science question for you - why does a dead body produce a short coherent high energy burst of radiation
And where did a forger get a UV laser from? Or plug it in for that matter? Or anticipate the photography that later showed the image? Or put blood stains onto a cloth then make the image? Or anticipate 20th century understanding of pathology to mimic that too on the sudarium? The idea of fake is ridiculous: only atheist prejudice demands it is fake.

Every case I suggest has substantial inexplicable evidence, much of it forensic and has a clear theist link. I suggest you look at it. Then make up your mind, is a good order. So far you make up your mind before looking.

Unless you care about evidence , you prove apriori prejudice, no point in further replies till you do.

No, you don’t prefer science. You eschew any source that views your miracle claims critically and you consider anyone who disagrees with you fatally biased and under-researched. You prefer to fight straw men. Wikipedia may not be an authority, but it is not to be dismissed outright. It cites its sources. Check those, then you can see if they are to be dismissed.

Further, you fail to grasp the concept that a lack of a viable scientific explanation is not evidence of a theistic one. This is very basic for anyone who has any semblance of formal training in science. Why does it continue to escape you?

 

[Mountainmike]

Come back when you want to talk science and evidence - not apriori prejudice.

This is a thread about evidence, so you are well off topic with the ad hominems

My suggestion is YOU do what you preach - search sources. The credible ones.
You still have not commented on a single piece of evidence - even that I put in the thread.

You are dismissing it without even discovering what it is. So dont you dare try to pretend science or critical thinking supports you!

Your views on the issues I raised are? What precisely you dont say?
How did a first centurly forger get a dead body to give out a high energy short burst radiation or discharge - the only known science that reproduces the mark and allows for the 3D distortions.


Most atheists have a strong faith: See yourself in this mirror of nonsequiturs and
assumptions: "There is no God. Therefore miracles cant happen. Therefore science can debunk mirales. Therefore someone has already debunked them. Therefore sceptics dont even need to look at evidence just assume apriori someone has debunked them. So quote any skeptic nonsense you find to protect the apriori position. Because the sceptic position is apriori right." All prejudice!

They dont care whether the arguments have veracity- just so long as they are sceptic. It is called confirmation bias.

For all he phenomena that interest me pm the other hand , I have collected volumes of papers and books and discounted some on that basis.

Ive read the illinformed hogwash written by skeptic atheists on them wondering if any arguments held merit (all part of being objective) I concluded - it must be a profitable business being a sceptic publisher. The readers are so un discerning you can write what you like - they lap it up!

Atheists that use science as a philosophical crutch dont know what science is.
.

No, you don’t prefer science. You eschew any source that views your miracle claims critically and you consider anyone who disagrees with you fatally biased and under-researched. You prefer to fight straw men. Wikipedia may not be an authority, but it is not to be dismissed outright. It cites its sources. Check those, then you can see if they are to be dismissed.

Further, you fail to grasp the concept that a lack of a viable scientific explanation is not evidence of a theistic one. This is very basic for anyone who has any semblance of formal training in science. Why does it continue to escape you?

 

[gaara4158]

Come back when you want to talk science and evidence - not apriori prejudice.

This is a thread about evidence, so you are well off topic with the ad hominems

My suggestion is YOU do what you preach - search sources. The credible ones.
You still have not commented on a single piece of evidence - even that I put in the thread.

You are dismissing it without even discovering what it is. So dont you dare try to pretend science or critical thinking supports you!

Your views on the issues I raised are? What precisely you dont say?
How did a first centurly forger get a dead body to give out a high energy short burst radiation or discharge - the only known science that reproduces the mark and allows for the 3D distortions.


Most atheists have a strong faith: See yourself in this mirror of nonsequiturs and
assumptions: "There is no God. Therefore miracles cant happen. Therefore science can debunk mirales. Therefore someone has already debunked them. Therefore sceptics dont even need to look at evidence just assume apriori someone has debunked them. So quote any skeptic nonsense you find to protect the apriori position. Because the sceptic position is apriori right." All prejudice!

They dont care whether the arguments have veracity- just so long as they are sceptic. It is called confirmation bias.

For all he phenomena that interest me pm the other hand , I have collected volumes of papers and books and discounted some on that basis.

Ive read the illinformed hogwash written by skeptic atheists on them wondering if any arguments held merit (all part of being objective) I concluded - it must be a profitable business being a sceptic publisher. The readers are so un discerning you can write what you like - they lap it up!

Atheists that use science as a philosophical crutch dont know what science is.
.

It is not obvious that engaging the evidence of either side with you would be a good use of my time. First I have to ask what your standard is for a reliable source?

 

[FIRESTORM314]

I am not sure why you’re throwing out impossible challenges, let’s ask how I can prove I’m not part of your imagination. I’ll say because I personally feel, have emotions, feel pain, do things.....

If it’s all in your imagination how is my life happening when you don’t know what I’m doing?

However I can’t prove anything about reality if it’s all part of your imagination can I?

Well it's nice to see you want to play again - the test was a test of your attitude after all.
You get many chances to correct mistakes during your life but at the end of your years - it really is GAME OVER. There is a time limit imposed on the real test.

ISAIAH 55:6
Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.

The game did have a secondary purpose.....

Well - let's now suppose I am me ( human ) and you are God. This channel is all we have to communicate with.
You have to persuade me this is not a figment of my imagination and you are for real. Can you do that?

If you could - would it pass as concrete Evidence?

Now - let's also suppose there is no other people in this thread. Having got your proof that you used to persuade me you are real ( if indeed you can ). How would I be able to persuade the rest of the people in the forum that you are also real without them seeing the contents of this thread. Could I do that?

 

[gaara4158]

Well it's nice to see you want to play again - the test was a test of your attitude after all.
You get many chances to correct mistakes during your life but at the end of your years - it really is GAME OVER. There is a time limit imposed on the real test.

ISAIAH 55:6
Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.

The game did have a secondary purpose.....

Well - let's now suppose I am me ( human ) and you are God. This channel is all we have to communicate with.
You have to persuade me this is not a figment of my imagination and you are for real. Can you do that?

If you could - would it pass as concrete Evidence?

Now - let's also suppose there is no other people in this thread. Having got your proof that you used to persuade me you are real ( if indeed you can ). How would I be able to persuade the rest of the people in the forum that you are also real without them seeing the contents of this thread. Could I do that?

Supposing the answer is “Yes, as God I can convince you of anything I like and no, you do not possess that power over the others of this forum,” is it reasonable to expect the others of this forum to believe what has been revealed to you?

 

[Mountainmike]

So on a thread about evidence, you dont think talking about evidence is useful???

So you post your apriori and generic assumptions about it , and stereotyped view of what you think I think, without knowing whether I think it!
Since you dont know the evidence, so you cannot engage it or indeed consider the standard of it. On that basis it is obvious, and I agree you are wasting your time: unless you are interested in searching for truth.

But that leads to the obvious question. I am genuinely interested: What was the point of entering the thread?

I am a scientist. I like talking evidence and science.
And also what science can tell you and what it cant.
But I cant (and indeed wont) discuss with those who refuse to look beyond their own assumptions.

It is not obvious that engaging the evidence of either side with you would be a good use of my time. First I have to ask what your standard is for a reliable source?

 

[FIRESTORM314]

Supposing the answer is “Yes, as God I can convince you of anything I like and no, you do not possess that power over the others of this forum,” is it reasonable to expect the others of this forum to believe what has been revealed to you?

Is it reasonable? Again - Is it not a question of Truth?
The revelation came to someone who passed God's selection test and that was also a question of Truth.

The question was "Do You Believe This?"

 

[gaara4158]

Is it reasonable? Again - Is it not a question of Truth?
The revelation came to someone who passed God's selection test and that was also a question of Truth.

The question was "Do You Believe This?"

The real question is, should you believe something if it hasn’t been demonstrated?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The real question is, should you believe something if it hasn’t been demonstrated?

I'd like to suggest that before we ask this question, we may want to contemplate whether or not there are some 'truths' that may not be immediately demonstrable. If so, then we may want to make a list for three things: 1) those things that are demonstrable, 2) those things that we think are true about reality but are not easily demonstrable, and 3) those things that are not subject to direct demonstration.

Of course, we'll have to define what we think we mean by "demonstration."

 

[gaara4158]

So on a thread about evidence, you dont think talking about evidence is useful???

So you post your apriori and generic assumptions about it , and stereotyped view of what you think I think, without knowing whether I think it!
Since you dont know the evidence, so you cannot engage it or indeed consider the standard of it. On that basis it is obvious, and I agree you are wasting your time: unless you are interested in searching for truth.

But that leads to the obvious question. I am genuinely interested: What was the point of entering the thread?

I am a scientist. I like talking evidence and science.
And also what science can tell you and what it cant.
But I cant (and indeed wont) discuss with those who refuse to look beyond their own assumptions.

Not with you, based on the attitude you’ve taken thus far. It’s not personal, I just don’t see the effort I’d have to put into discussing each piece of evidence with you paying off. You spout off objectionable claims much faster than I can dismantle them. Cheers.