And I will explain the blindingly obvious to YOU: folks in this thread with in-depth knowledge of these issues and the studies involved disagree with you. Yours is not the only interpretation in this thread.
That's not what you did. You systematically set up a situation where you would be able to dismiss any statement I made. I've debated Creationists; I have seen that tactic too many times to count. It's boring, it's counter-productive, and I refuse to take the bait.
We're not talking about thevast majority of human activity. We're talking science. You don't get to say "But this is allowed in football!!!!" if we're playing Poker, which is the equivalent of what you are trying to do.
Play by the rules, or your arguments are inadmissible. It is as simple as that.
We have. You don't like the explanations, but we have. Now I'm bored with playing your game and will go back to the actual rules: Put up or shut up. Provide evidence that every single one of these claims is valid--which is EXACTLY what scientists are obliged to do--or admit you can't and shut up about them. Those are your two options. I will consider claims that can be substantiated, using the standard scientific definition of the term. Any other claim doesn't rise to the level of being worth considering in a scientific discussion.
See, this is how I know you were using weasle words. NOTHING I provide will be conclusive, because your standards shift. If I provide something that establishes that 99% of the cases are not real, you'll say it's not conclusive because 1% aren't addressed. If I provide two that show collectively that 100% aren't real, you'll dismiss both because one only covers 70% of them and one covers 80% of them.
Here's the dirty little secret your entire contribution to this thread is designed to hide: You are demanding more evidence to disprove your claims than you demand before accepting them. This is an egregious and wanton violation of scientific protocols, a clear demonstration of bias on your part, and a dishonest attempt at shifting the burden of proof. If that were all I knew about this subject, I could dismiss every single thing you say--EVERY. SINGLE. WORD.--on that basis alone. You are not a reliable source, pure and simple. But folks here are overly-generous, and are bending the rules for you, often to the breaking point. And your response is nothing but vitrial and personal attacks.
Either demonstrate--conclusively, by standard definitions for the relevant terms in scientific discourse--that the cases involved are valid--every one of them, because we only need consider the ones you do so demonstrate to be valid--or we're done here. Given your posting style, I will give you ONE chance to do so. If your next post is not an in-depth analysis of these claims (again, I'm being overly generous--a good faith effort of a dozen or so will sufficie) I will not respond to anything else you have to say in this thread.
