Dark Clouds Gathering over America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeepster

What a leader kill every person who does not beleive in him,
a bit like Putin.

---

The most short sighted comment of the year (so far).
Let's forget about where the people of Nineveh were heading before and then after the visit of Jonah.
Another fast food drive-thru approach to thinking about what really matters.
Like City at 1.25pm, there is plenty of room for improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

The most short sighted comment of the year (so far).
Let's forget about where the people of Nineveh were heading before and then after the visit of Jonah.
Another fast food drive-thru approach to thinking about what really matters.
Like City at 1.25pm, there is plenty of room for improvement.

---

Wow i am top of the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

What ABOUT the other 183,000 deaths?
If you take the time to compose an entire question which would include context and clarity then I'd be able to address it.
Thanks.

---

Read my above post you previously ignored. If that’s too much effort, what about the other 183,000 deaths? Were they the result of solar eclipses? If yes, how? If not, why is the earthquake that killed 17,000 people the only one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeepster

Wow i am top of the league.

---

Sgorio! :ayatollah:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

Read my above post you previously ignored. If that’s too much effort, what about the other 183,000 deaths? Were they the result of solar eclipses? If yes, how? If not, why is the earthquake that killed 17,000 people the only one?

---

Thanks for the effort.
Now why:-

1. Are you assuming it's the only one?
2. Do you think I've got the time to investigate 100 years of data?
3. Do I get the impression you want all the data to confirm your hope that there is no God ASAP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Thanks for the effort.
Now why:-

1. Are you assuming it's the only one?
2. Do you think I've got the time to investigate 100 years of data?
3. Do I get the impression you want all the data to confirm your hope that there is no God ASAP?

---

You’ve used one example to imply there’s a connection, presumably you’ve got more examples to make such wild claims?

It took me maybe 2 minutes to come up with 5 of the deadliest earthquakes in the 21st century, the most recent previous solar eclipse and its location. It shouldn’t be too hard for you to come up with some basic data.

I don’t believe in god. I’m not fussed about that debate. Claiming that god will cause an earthquake under a solar eclipse because the Americans chose the wrong president isn’t going to change that. I’d rather focus on the “solar eclipses cause earthquakes” topic we’ve found ourselves on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

You’ve used one example to imply there’s a connection, presumably you’ve got more examples to make such wild claims?

It took me maybe 2 minutes to come up with 5 of the deadliest earthquakes in the 21st century, the most recent previous solar eclipse and its location. It shouldn’t be too hard for you to come up with some basic data.

I don’t believe in god. I’m not fussed about that debate. Claiming that god will cause an earthquake under a solar eclipse because the Americans chose the wrong president isn’t going to change that. I’d rather focus on the “solar eclipses cause earthquakes” topic we’ve found ourselves on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

You’ve used one example to imply there’s a connection, presumably you’ve got more examples to make such wild claims?

It took me maybe 2 minutes to come up with 5 of the deadliest earthquakes in the 21st century, the most recent previous solar eclipse and its location. It shouldn’t be too hard for you to come up with some basic data.

I don’t believe in god. I’m not fussed about that debate. Claiming that god will cause an earthquake under a solar eclipse because the Americans chose the wrong president isn’t going to change that. I’d rather focus on the “solar eclipses cause earthquakes” topic we’ve found ourselves on.

---

I don’t believe in god. I’m not fussed about that debate - you say.
In other words, I'm uncomfortable thinking about Almighty God and I'd rather not focus on my faith, which I am certain isn't religious!
A familiar position, and the denial that comes with it.

As for the claim, "Claiming that god will cause an earthquake under a solar eclipse because the Americans chose the wrong president" is not the issue and it never was. This is more to do with a nation founded on Biblical principles turning against those principles and therefore against God.

I'm certain that you will think this has nothing whatsoever to do with yourself and it won't impact you in any way, and this is where we differ, greatly.

Lastly, why do you think this isssue related to 1999 is a 'wild claim' (?). The average amount of deaths across the WHOLE of Europe in the 20th Century from quakes was less then 39 people per week. Yet in less than one week 17,000 people perished due to a major quake in a country darkened by that total eclipse. If you are so willingly blind that you can't see anything out of the ordinary in that, then why should I spend more time trying to demonstrate something you wish to remain in denial about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

I don’t believe in god. I’m not fussed about that debate - you say.
In other words, I'm uncomfortable thinking about Almighty God and I'd rather not focus on my faith, which I am certain isn't religious!
A familiar position, and the denial that comes with it.

As for the claim, "Claiming that god will cause an earthquake under a solar eclipse because the Americans chose the wrong president" is not the issue and it never was. This is more to do with a nation founded on Biblical principles turning against those principles and therefore against God.

I'm certain that you will think this has nothing whatsoever to do with yourself and it won't impact you in any way, and this is where we differ, greatly.

Lastly, why do you think this isssue related to 1999 is a 'wild claim' (?). The average amount of deaths across the WHOLE of Europe in the 20th Century from quakes was less then 39 people per week. Yet in less than one week 17,000 people perished due to a major quake in a country darkened by that total eclipse. If you are so willingly blind that you can't see anything out of the ordinary in that, then why should I spend more time trying to demonstrate something you wish to remain in denial about?

---

This is a genuinely astonishing interpretation of statistics.

The reason the average number of deaths in Europe is low is because it's rare. Two of the 25 biggest 20th century earthquakes by fatality (globally) were in Italy, and it's a whole other debate as to whether the Izmit 1999 earthquake was in Europe or not, but for your argument let's say it was. That's just three out of 25, if anyone can find a longer list than this then please share and we'll see if that is the trend or not. I would imagine it is as Europe is mostly safely inside the Eurasian Plate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_...ry_earthquakes

The majority of European earthquake deaths (132,000 out of 202,000) happened in 1908, 1915, and 1999. It makes absolutely no sense at all to make this a weekly average, as if it were like road deaths.

There were 71 total eclipses globally in the 20th century. I'm not intending to look through every one of them, so I just checked the years. In 1908, one went over the Pacific from the Marshall Islands to Costa Rica (not near Europe); in 1915, one went from Australia to Japan (not near Europe); and a second in 1915 was also over the Pacific and only visible from Japan. And of course in 1999, one went from a little bit of Cornwall, over Turkey, and on its way to Pakistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_20th_century

So that's one example I can find, and that's not even the X that you talk about in the opening post. If there was a correlation, there would be more examples. And let's be honest, a scientist would have spotted it by now as earthquake prediction is notoriously inexact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

This is a genuinely astonishing interpretation of statistics.

The reason the average number of deaths in Europe is low is because it's rare. Two of the 25 biggest 20th century earthquakes by fatality (globally) were in Italy, and it's a whole other debate as to whether the Izmit 1999 earthquake was in Europe or not, but for your argument let's say it was. That's just three out of 25, if anyone can find a longer list than this then please share and we'll see if that is the trend or not. I would imagine it is as Europe is mostly safely inside the Eurasian Plate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_...ry_earthquakes

The majority of European earthquake deaths (132,000 out of 202,000) happened in 1908, 1915, and 1999. It makes absolutely no sense at all to make this a weekly average, as if it were like road deaths.

There were 71 total eclipses globally in the 20th century. I'm not intending to look through every one of them, so I just checked the years. In 1908, one went over the Pacific from the Marshall Islands to Costa Rica (not near Europe); in 1915, one went from Australia to Japan (not near Europe); and a second in 1915 was also over the Pacific and only visible from Japan. And of course in 1999, one went from a little bit of Cornwall, over Turkey, and on its way to Pakistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_20th_century

So that's one example I can find, and that's not even the X that you talk about in the opening post. If there was a correlation, there would be more examples. And let's be honest, a scientist would have spotted it by now as earthquake prediction is notoriously inexact.

---

A scientist!
Yes, we've just had 4 years of 'following the science' and what an unnecessary pantomime that was :facepalm:

Away from relying on the unreliable, it wasn't me that brought up the 1999 eclipse, it was one of your lot, a fellow skeptic.
All I did was immediately prove that within 6 days there was a major earthquake in one of the countries that was touched by the 'darkness'. As you pointed out, major quakes are fairly rare and you rightly quoted, "1908, 1915, and 1999". I made a connection straight away with the 1999 event, I'm sorry if that was inconvenient or your local scientist didn't send you an email, maybe they were busy wasting billions of euros trying to get atoms to collide so they they can tell God He was wrong about how we all got here?

So, do you think all science is a waste of time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

I don’t believe in god. I’m not fussed about that debate - you say.
In other words, I'm uncomfortable thinking about Almighty God and I'd rather not focus on my faith, which I am certain isn't religious!
A familiar position, and the denial that comes with it.

As for the claim, "Claiming that god will cause an earthquake under a solar eclipse because the Americans chose the wrong president" is not the issue and it never was. This is more to do with a nation founded on Biblical principles turning against those principles and therefore against God.

I'm certain that you will think this has nothing whatsoever to do with yourself and it won't impact you in any way, and this is where we differ, greatly.

Lastly, why do you think this isssue related to 1999 is a 'wild claim' (?). The average amount of deaths across the WHOLE of Europe in the 20th Century from quakes was less then 39 people per week. Yet in less than one week 17,000 people perished due to a major quake in a country darkened by that total eclipse. If you are so willingly blind that you can't see anything out of the ordinary in that, then why should I spend more time trying to demonstrate something you wish to remain in denial about?

---

I don’t believe in god. You do. I probably never will and you will probably never relinquish your belief.

Why are you measuring deaths from earthquakes weekly? Do you think earthquakes with fatalities are a weekly occurrence? Why not daily? Why not monthly?

Of the 200,000 deaths in Europe in the 20th century, ~150,000 were from 3. Italy in 1908 and 1915 and Turkey in 1939. Add in the 1999 quake and that number rises to ~170,000.

In the 1999 there were 6 earthquakes globally with fatalities, only 2 of those were in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

I don’t believe in god. You do. I probably never will and you will probably never relinquish your belief.

Why are you measuring deaths from earthquakes weekly? Do you think earthquakes with fatalities are a weekly occurrence? Why not daily? Why not monthly?

Of the 200,000 deaths in Europe in the 20th century, ~150,000 were from 3. Italy in 1908 and 1915 and Turkey in 1939. Add in the 1999 quake and that number rises to ~170,000.

In the 1999 there were 6 earthquakes globally with fatalities, only 2 of those were in Europe.

---

Just like the book of fables he reads,all unreal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

I don’t believe in god. You do. I probably never will and you will probably never relinquish your belief.

Why are you measuring deaths from earthquakes weekly? Do you think earthquakes with fatalities are a weekly occurrence? Why not daily? Why not monthly?

Of the 200,000 deaths in Europe in the 20th century, ~150,000 were from 3. Italy in 1908 and 1915 and Turkey in 1939. Add in the 1999 quake and that number rises to ~170,000.

In the 1999 there were 6 earthquakes globally with fatalities, only 2 of those were in Europe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo

So, do you think all science is a waste of time?

---

Of course not, however there was a time when science was actual science, ie all verified knowledge.
Today it can still be this, but the unverified speculation all gets thrown into the same pot, which is what makes up many of the regular science 'updates' - more accurately, corrections and retractions.

So what we have today is science that may be true, or may not. Documentaries on scientific issues are full of statements like, 'scientists believe* that..." / "scientists think this may* have...", and most of the gooey eyed public don't even notice such statements of belief or speculation, mainly because other genuine scientific advances have been so brilliant.

* These statements are accepted at the drop of a hat, but similar statements of belief from those who trust God (who has never had to issue apologies/ corrections etc) are seen as irrational?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Of course not, however there was a time when science was actual science, ie all verified knowledge.
Today it can still be this, but the unverified speculation all gets thrown into the same pot, which is what makes up many of the regular science 'updates' - more accurately, corrections and retractions.

So what we have today is science that may be true, or may not. Documentaries on scientific issues are full of statements like, 'scientists believe* that..." / "scientists think this may* have...", and most of the gooey eyed public don't even notice such statements of belief or speculation, mainly because other genuine scientific advances have been so brilliant.

* These statements are accepted at the drop of a hat, but similar statements of belief from those who trust God (who has never had to issue apologies/ corrections etc) are seen as irrational?

---

Do you think there is a correlation between solar eclipses and earthquakes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Of course not, however there was a time when science was actual science, ie all verified knowledge.
Today it can still be this, but the unverified speculation all gets thrown into the same pot, which is what makes up many of the regular science 'updates' - more accurately, corrections and retractions.

So what we have today is science that may be true, or may not. Documentaries on scientific issues are full of statements like, 'scientists believe* that..." / "scientists think this may* have...", and most of the gooey eyed public don't even notice such statements of belief or speculation, mainly because other genuine scientific advances have been so brilliant.

* These statements are accepted at the drop of a hat, but similar statements of belief from those who trust God (who has never had to issue apologies/ corrections etc) are seen as irrational?

---

What a load of total cobblers. When was this time 'when science was.... all verified knowledge'?

There are observed or measured facts, and there are theories and hypotheses to explain them - theories that can be tested and revised and evolved to fit new data and emerging understanding. I want to hear what scientists 'believe' and what they think 'may' explain phenomena and natural processes. That is how science works and how knowledge grows.

If there was a God (or gods) then He (or she or it) would be issuing apologies every day, all day. Thankfully there isn't a supernatural being responsible for the wars diseases and suffering of the world.... because that would be one hell (!) of a guilt trip!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

What a load of total cobblers. When was this time 'when science was.... all verified knowledge'?

There are observed or measured facts, and there are theories and hypotheses to explain them - theories that can be tested and revised and evolved to fit new data and emerging understanding. I want to hear what scientists 'believe' and what they think 'may' explain phenomena and natural processes. That is how science works and how knowledge grows.

If there was a God (or gods) then He (or she or it) would be issuing apologies every day, all day. Thankfully there isn't a supernatural being responsible for the wars diseases and suffering of the world.... because that would be one hell (!) of a guilt trip!

---

You have a short and selected memory, we were asked to "follow the science" not the theories. It was the 'science' that was in error, again and again starting in 2020. Sure there was some good science work too, which is worthy of note and saved many lives, but that has nothing to do with the other multiple failures.

You then stated, "There are observed or measured facts, and there are theories and hypotheses to explain them - theories that can be tested and revised and evolved to fit new data and emerging understanding" - how exactly can a theory be 'evolved'(?), or would you care to replace this word with one that is more fitting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

You have a short and selected memory, we were asked to "follow the science" not the theories. It was the 'science' that was in error, again and again starting in 2020. Sure there was some good science work too, which is worthy of note and saved many lives, but that has nothing to do with the other multiple failures.

You then stated, "There are observed or measured facts, and there are theories and hypotheses to explain them - theories that can be tested and revised and evolved to fit new data and emerging understanding" - how exactly can a theory be 'evolved'(?), or would you care to replace this word with one that is more fitting?

---

You can look into what 'theory' means in the context of a scientific theory. It's not what you think, as Jon is completely correct to use that word.

For example, there is a law of gravity, and I'm sure we'd all agree that gravity is real. But there's also a theory of gravity, which explains why it happens. Laws don't change (as gravity is not suddenly going to start acting differently) but theories do get revised as we have more evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

You can look into what 'theory' means in the context of a scientific theory. It's not what you think, as Jon is completely correct to use that word.

For example, there is a law of gravity, and I'm sure we'd all agree that gravity is real. But there's also a theory of gravity, which explains why it happens. Laws don't change (as gravity is not suddenly going to start acting differently) but theories do get revised as we have more evidence.

---

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiss Peter

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

---

🙌 Those cracker jokes occasionally come up with a gem. 😛🤣

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiss Peter

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

---

:hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiss Peter

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

---

My first laugh today:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiss Peter

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

---

I find the concept of gravity quite attractive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

I find the concept of gravity quite attractive.

---

I'm not falling for any gravity puns again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

:hehe:

---

I assume from your lack of a reply on your use of the word 'evolve' was simply a nod to your unconfirmed world view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

You can look into what 'theory' means in the context of a scientific theory. It's not what you think, as Jon is completely correct to use that word.

For example, there is a law of gravity, and I'm sure we'd all agree that gravity is real. But there's also a theory of gravity, which explains why it happens. Laws don't change (as gravity is not suddenly going to start acting differently) but theories do get revised as we have more evidence.

---

I wasn't querying his use of the word theory, although evolution while considered a theory isn't technically a theory (as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment) at all, it is more accurately an 'idea' - one that has yet to gain any verified traction. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative is for most people, unthinkable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

I assume from your lack of a reply on your use of the word 'evolve' was simply a nod to your unconfirmed world view?

---

What?

I used the word 'evolved' because that was the word I wanted to use.

I didn't reply to your post because it was kinder not to. You were tying yourself into a semantic and philosophical knot again.

I have a world view, thanks. I can confirm it is not an unconfirmed world view.

OK? :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

I wasn't querying his use of the word theory, although evolution while considered a theory isn't technically a theory (as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment) at all, it is more accurately an 'idea' - one that has yet to gain any verified traction. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative is for most people, unthinkable.

---

:hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

What?

I used the word 'evolved' because that was the word I wanted to use.

I didn't reply to your post because it was kinder not to. You were tying yourself into a semantic and philosophical knot again.

I have a world view, thanks. I can confirm it is not an unconfirmed world view.

OK? :hehe:

---

Not really, I watch documentaries and many other types of programmes where 'evolution' is used instead of development, or 'evolve' is used instead of grow (for example), and the misuse of the word is always laughable. They seem to think that saying their word view even via poor english will somehow make it true, in reality that WV hasn't been confirmed and never will be.

The above should read "World View" (not word view) :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

The above should read "World View" (not word view) :hehe:

---

It makes no difference - still gibberish! :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

I wasn't querying his use of the word theory, although evolution while considered a theory isn't technically a theory (as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment) at all, it is more accurately an 'idea' - one that has yet to gain any verified traction. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative is for most people, unthinkable.

---

"as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment"

Can you explain a bit more about what you mean here, please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

Do you think there is a correlation between solar eclipses and earthquakes?

---

Just to help you out.

Solar eclipses in the 21st century:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...e_21st_century

Earthquakes in the 21st century:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ry_earthquakes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

"as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment"

Can you explain a bit more about what you mean here, please?

---

Each formula contained in this ARTICLE has been discovered because gravity CAN be demonstrated, because it has a foundation in reality and fact.

Most people would be familiar with G-force, the article includes "In the first equation above, g is referred to as the acceleration of gravity. Its value is 9.8 m/s2 on Earth. That is to say, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2. When discussing the acceleration of gravity, it was mentioned that the value of g is dependent upon location".

In contrast, evolution (although also called a theory) cannot be demonstrated, or proven. Therefore in scientific terms it can only be classed as an idea, or concept. What CAN be seen is speciation which is a variety within cats, dogs etc etc Unfortunately the idea of evolution requires a number of other things, such as one species becoming another, and crucially a solution to the biggest problem, a lack of generational information. And even if you solve that problem, the required organisation of that new information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Each formula contained in this ARTICLE has been discovered because gravity CAN be demonstrated, because it has a foundation in reality and fact.

Most people would be familiar with G-force, the article includes "In the first equation above, g is referred to as the acceleration of gravity. Its value is 9.8 m/s2 on Earth. That is to say, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2. When discussing the acceleration of gravity, it was mentioned that the value of g is dependent upon location".

In contrast, evolution (although also called a theory) cannot be demonstrated, or proven. Therefore in scientific terms it can only be classed as an idea, or concept. What CAN be seen is speciation which is a variety within cats, dogs etc etc Unfortunately the idea of evolution requires a number of other things, such as one species becoming another, and crucially a solution to the biggest problem, a lack of generational information. And even if you solve that problem, the required organisation of that new information.

---

You're talking about the law of gravity, not the theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Each formula contained in this ARTICLE has been discovered because gravity CAN be demonstrated, because it has a foundation in reality and fact.

In contrast, evolution (although also called a theory) cannot be demonstrated, or proven. Therefore in scientific terms it can only be classed as an idea, or concept.

---

Sounds to me like you could replace “evolution” with “god” and that sentence would still be accurate. Hmmm

Unless there’s a god formula I missed in high school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

Sounds to me like you could replace “evolution” with “god” and that sentence would still be accurate. Hmmm

Unless there’s a god formula I missed in high school.

---

That works if you want God to be a formula, are YOU simply a formula?
Nice try though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

You're talking about the law of gravity, not the theory.

---

The reason you can have a law of gravity is because of the reasons given above, you can demonstrate it repeatedly.
When was macro evolution demonstrated even once? Which would mean it could be classified in the same way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

The reason you can have a law of gravity is because of the reasons given above, you can demonstrate it repeatedly.
When was macro evolution demonstrated even once? Which would mean it could be classified in the same way?

---

So you are saying that a scientific theory is accurate? It is a reliable explanation of what we observe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

That works if you want God to be a formula, are YOU simply a formula?
Nice try though.

---

Gravity is provable through laws of physics and mathematical equations. God is not.

You accuse evolution of being a false belief because there isn’t a formula or a quantifiable measurement for it.

I believe in evolution without the need for a formula because I’ve seen sufficient evidence, data and opinions to convince me. You likewise believe in god for the same reasons. There is no formula or physical proof of god’s existence, therefore he/they/is just a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

Gravity is provable through laws of physics and mathematical equations. God is not.

You accuse evolution of being a false belief because there isn’t a formula or a quantifiable measurement for it.

I believe in evolution without the need for a formula because I’ve seen sufficient evidence, data and opinions to convince me. You likewise believe in god for the same reasons. There is no formula or physical proof of god’s existence, therefore he/they/is just a theory.

---

That's not quite what I said, I said that formulas can be produced BECAUSE gravity has it's foundation in reality, and evolution does not.

On the other hand, you say, "I’ve seen sufficient evidence, data and opinions to convince me", so please share the most robust example from all that evidence, so I and others can see what has caused you to create a world view around the idea that is known as evolution?