-->
@Moozer325
Go straight for those good reasons, it saves time.Well in that hypothetical, it would be beneficial to find out for yourself, but when it comes to complex issues like evolution, you can't just walk into the room and see what color the cube is.
If you can't see what color the cube is, you shouldn't tell others what color the cube is.
That kind of behavior is how you get millions of people saying the same false thing.
To really be an expert you have to dedicate your whole life to biology
No, they just happen to use the word "expert" for someone who does. In many fields profound truth is available after a few days of focus, while for other subjects a human lifetime is far from sufficient to understand (that's why we specialize).
The essence of genius is finding the concept which explains the complex phenomenon while being simple enough to understand. That is what the experts should be doing and that is why a true expert can justify themselves to any rational intelligent questioner.
That's why we go out and find studies that other scientists did, because it's their job to do those studies.
In the abstract an appeal to authority will remain pointless. If you were to pick something specific it would be obvious that evidence is not the issue.
Has anyone denied a particular fossil exists? Of course it would be pointless to try and debate that, the doubter should go ask to see the fossil. That is not the issue and to pretend a particular piece of evidence or a particular kind of experiment has to be taken on faith and then everything else would follow is dishonest.
Now if it isn't a particular piece of evidence or a particular kind of experiment, then what remains? What is the content of these studies that you expect others to take on faith even though you profess ignorance?
and yet if you applied that premise to religion suddenly "it's different". A rule with exceptions is no rule.Once again, religion isn't science.
Once again, if they are different in a way that matters then your rule is still wrong.
If you think there are double blind controls in paleontology you don't know what you're talking about.This isn't an experiment, it's all analysis (logic).Fine, I misused the word experiment
You didn't use that word. You said "study" and that's obscuring your error. Studies present data and analysis. If you doubt the data reproduce it. If you doubt the analysis use logic.
I accept that average people can't reproduce the data. I do not accept that people who cannot check the logic should be making assertions about the analysis and that is precisely what appealing to authority is. "I heard it here, so I'm repeating it; you should believe it too".
but if all the analysis comes back and says that evolution is proven
"Comes back"
Comes back from where? The magical truth factory?
Analysis is inference. It happens in your brain. If it hasn't happened in your brain then you have nothing to debate.
