If you can say this after the posts that RAZD, LinearAQ and I have put here, then I'm not sure what kind of criteria you are using. As long as there are people who want to deny that the evidence exists then there will be arguments. What would you like to have in your hands that would cause you not to argue?
Please Linda, neither any of RAZD's posts, Linears or your own have thus far provided anything factual beyond contemporary contentious opinion and philosophies of the worst sort directed toward creationists or anti-evolution proponents as though they are ignorant morons without a brain to think.
Lysenko is just an example used for the sake of convience Linda. No one is trying to make him an idol. Though his own bespeak the ideas of the day.
He saw that planting wheat very close together could initially encourage growth, but the growth could not be sustained because of the limited nutrients in the soil for so many plants.
and they call it science. any common farmer could have told you that 2000 years ago. but I do start my own garden the same way, it's generally the rule for any gardener, seed and pluck.
maybe they should have all gone to school for agriculture instead.
anyway, nonsense science is the theme. What I would to like to have in my hands that would cause me not to argue (though I realize you are used to dealing with 7 year olds and not adults so that may prove easier said by you than done by myself), is simply, hard unarguable evidence that the theories you laud as science are true. Unarguable hard evidence, beginning with Darwin's theory of evolution since that is the basic premise which is still taught in schools today.
I really to do hate to start in the middle and have to work half way around and then back upside down again. if you can start at the most recognized source, Darwin, and work forward that would be great.
My work is much easier than yours you see. I have many original writings by the lauded authors themselves to work with in which I am able to find unarguable hard evidence, not of science, but of
hubris, rasicm, and eugenics proclaiming itself as science and the contemporaries of the day raising their arms in horror of it. then of course I have 150 years of history to give this
hubris, rasicm, and eugenics proclaiming itself as science a valid working timeline within actual applications.
If you could provide the same in contrast, that would help unconfuse your position greatly.
