The “somebody that said” are your colleagues in the field of biology. Professors presented research and formed a conclusion based on evidence at the time. I believe the conclusion to be valid. There is certainly a chance that the conlclusion is wrong. That is reason, not faith.
You are up against at least 99 percent of biologists in your complete rejection of evolution. Even the fundamentalists in the ICR and other anti-evolution groups want to “teach the controversy.” You don’t seem to think there is one, and that evolution is completely invalid and has absolutely no merit whatsoever. I don’t believe that position is reasonable. You mention the ‘fraudulent’ theory of global warming. I also do not believe that is a scientifically honest statement. From what I can see, the field is dominated by alarmist scientists, but that does not invalidate all data. I personally know physicists working in this field. They are debating this issue intensely, and the debate is focused on the contributions of human activity vs. solar fluctuations.
Again, you cannot know what my world view is based on the previous blog posts. It is not logically possible. At most, you could conclude that I was lazy and/or unprepared by not having the lizard evidence directly available for the discussion. I may base my world view on astrology or the teachings of Buddha. For all you know, I could be a devout Catholic. After all, the Pope believes evolution is valid, and does not believe faith and evolution are mutually exclusive.
You ask how I personally observed Darwinian evolution. I have not, but that is completely irrelevant and logically unecessary.
I, along with most physicsts, will never personally observe elementary particles. We believe they exist because instruments detect miniscule changes in fields and/or missing energy that is then inferred to be the escape of a particle. The same reasoning applies to many of the processing in evolution.
I am not going to rehash and reprint my notes from all of my biology related courses for you to personally analyze, because I have other things to do. You can easily read through the >100,000 articles on google scholar alone to see where I may look for new information on evolution. How about the legal opinion from the conservative, Bush-appointed judge in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial? Your good friend Michael Behe certainly had alot of trouble explaining how irreducible complexity invalidated evolution when he was faced with the responses from other scientists.
“An evolutionist can’t cause to happen in a controlled laboratory environment what he alleges happened by chance in an uncontrolled environment.”-you
You should at least get the definition of evolution correct. I’m sure you are aware of the fact that evolution involves random mutation AND natural selection. Natural selection is not random chance.