A friend relates the story of walking on the U of Toronto campus recently, and passing by an animated discussion in which someone was shouting something like, "Show me some evidence for evolution!"
Very. Long. Pause.
Think about this. You're in the middle of one of Canada's premier universites, surrounded by world-class researchers (not to mention a decent library or two) and you're standing out on the sidewalk, demanding that someone else standing on that sidewalk provide you with evidence for evolution that you are almost certainly too fucking stupid to either understand or appreciate.
My advice to this person: Take a course. Read a book. Talk to someone who isn't as stupid as you are. And stop expecting others to do your work for you.
The evidence is all around you, and it's readily accessible. Stop being so goddamned lazy and look at some of it, OK?
Objective evidence? WHAT objective evidence? One anonymous commenter tries to level the playing field with:
Others would give the same argument about God, CC. I don't see you defending them when they say something like, "The evidence is all around you, and it's readily accessible. Stop being so lazy and look at some of it, OK?" Oh, no. If they were to say something like that, you'd take them to task for being unable (or too lazy) to provide proof of God.
Sigh. OK, I'll bite (although, by now, you think I'd know better).
I'm quite capable of providing truckloads of evidence for things like an ancient earth and biological evolution. Objective evidence for that matter. Can these people really say the same about evidence for the existence of God?
I doubt it, since part of their shtick is that having complete faith in the totally unseen is critically important to them. So it's hard to see how they're going to simultaneously hold on to that faith part and still claim to be able to provide evidence, no?
In any event, you seem to be suggesting that one person's evidence is entirely equivalent to another person's evidence and that there's no way to judge the difference between the two. Is that really what you're saying? That there's no real concept of objective evidence? I hope that's not what you're saying but it sure sounds like it and there's no way I'd want to try to defend something like that, but it seems like that's just what you're trying to do. Good luck.