The fact that you would present my opinion as something other than what I stated is evidence that you're incapable of an honest conversation.

Do you know what all accredited scientists have in common? That their outputs are available for anyone, even laymen to review, including all the evidence, experimentation and thought work that led them to their conclusions.

But do you know what a layman can't do? Peer review the work of accredited scientists. That's the critical part of the process, because only an accredited scientist has the necessary body of knowledge to be able to meaningfully critique the work of his peers. That's why we use the word peer.

You and I can argue about evolution until we're blue in the face and scientists will keep pushing the envelope regardless of that, producing new, exciting and important discoveries to the benefit of us all.

I am an accredited scientist in my own field. I discuss it with other scientists every day. I teach laymen every day in the hope that they will achieve accreditation too one day.

If this is your goal, I wish you all the best, but you won't achieve it with the primitive thinking of your initial comment. As for layman debate about fields in which neither of us are accredited, I'm not interested given the lackluster quality of your arguments, but stick around long enough and maybe you'll find someone else to roll around in the mud with.