G'day, Ed. More bluster, I see, filled with inaccuracy and faulty observation. I clearly touched a raw nerve pointing out that your link directly contradicted your own approach, something you clearly hadn't noticed, but hey ho. My requests for evidence are not unreasonable. Read what I said to Georgiansilver on the other thread. That sets out my minimum standard, and I think it's exceptionally fair, don't you? Or do you go around gullibly believing every yarn peddled to you by strangers "because they said so?" You think I'm bullying/whining/whatever because I want at least some corroboration? In science, someone's say-so is just one possible starting point for further observation, experimentation and interpretation of evidence, and research must be reliable enough to be repeatable and peer-reviewed. And that's for work done which all falls within the laws of physics. In religion, someone's say-so appear to be an end-point, not the start of further investigation. End of. It must be true because he and his mates all said so. The "evidence" that you and your like-minded allies are inclined to accept consists of claims of miraculous interventions by beings who have never been seen and who break all the laws of physics - yet you set the evidence bar ludicrously low for them! Perhaps it is rather tedious reading to see this constant attack on the gullibility of believers, of their reliance on faith instead of evidence - but it is the whole crux of the matter. It wouldn't be a tenth as important if religion didn't use this as a springboard for ensnaring billions of people into accepting mythology as truth, but that's what happens and that what does the damage.

Incidentally, if you want to direct quote something I've said, please copy and paste in future, or at least leave out the speech marks: I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science".
Never said those words, Ed. Hey, preserve accuracy and preserve your credibility is my advice.