That wasn't the point of my post. My point is that RussT doesn't feel he needs to bother with real evidence at all. His opinions are all he needs and all he bothers to write down.

He doesn't even bother to provide anything other than his opinion and anecdotal testimonies to support that sacred cow subject of Mercury Amalgams. You would think that he would at least provide some substantive support for the harmfulness of that.

His opinion of your version of Christianity is well documented. His evidence in support of his opinion is no more valid than the evidence he provides in support of his opinion about evolution.

Obviously, you don't think his opinion about the Mormon Faith is valid. So how do we determine what is true and what is not? Do we just accept everyone's ideas as true?

As for your point about what scientists would be "open" to, let me provide an example.

On July 5, 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his treatise on the laws of motion. In that paper, he stated that time and space were absolute parameters. In other words, time and space did not change and were separate from each other. For over 200 years, no one questioned this. Then another minor scientist named Albert Einstein, turned that idea on its ear by showing that space and time were interlocked and actually changed with changes in velocity and proximity to mass. Einstein earned great acclaim by going against an established theory and proving that his theory was more correct.

The point is that scientists obtain great personal fame by overturning established theories. If the theory of evolution was a flimsey as RussT claims, then at least one scientist would break out of the conspiracy to become famous and gain everything that the fame would provide.