Evidence Why would anyone want to present evidence to you? What is the purpose of evidence if not to persuade you of something with the intent to convince you? Who presents evidence if not a lawyer in a trial? Why does he do it if not to recruit the jurors to his version of the events? The mathemagicians have spread the ridiculous notion that Science is about presenting evidence. The reasoning behind this is that if you can back up your theory with evidence it has a chance of being true. But what does 'true' mean if not that YOU believe in the theory. They have convinced YOU of it. You may argue that there are specialists and experts all over the world that are convinced of a given theory in which you believe. Therefore, it's not only you who they have convinced. The first problem is that Science is not democratic. The entire planet can believe in the Flat Earth Theory for all that Mother Nature cares. It won't make it right. The second problem is that we still come back to you. All the scientists on Earth can believe in the existence of God and claim that God has been proven to them in the lab and in the field. Will you believe merely on the basis of THEIR authority? Is that your argument? That you believe because the celebrities all believe? Is that what science is about? Being a meek little lamb that just asks the celebrity for his autograph? Hopefully, you can defend your arguments without resorting to authority. Hopefully, if you are stuck on an island you can tell the only other person the details of your theory and not just make sweeping statements about what others allegedly proved. Testimonials There are a couple of types of evidence that prosecutors and defense attorneys typically introduce. One type is objective evidence, an object of sorts: a knife or a picture of the room where a crime was committed. A paleontologist may introduce as evidence a bone or a fossil. Another type of evidence is testimony. You bring a witness in to say something about the character of the accused or an expert to declare his opinion about the state of mind of a rapist or a murderer. In all instances, the purpose of testimony is to persuade the jury. The lawyer is attempting to win the case at any cost. Is this what Science is about? Winning the majority over to your side. Is this how we figure out how this Universe works? Let there be no doubt. The worst kind of evidence you can possibly introduce into a scientific duscussion is testimony, especially from so-called 'expert witnesses'. For instance, Svante Paabo 'knows' his field of genetics quite well. He can tell you the difference between DNA and RNA without batting an eyelash or how many genes Neanderthal had in common with anatomically modern humans. Does this make him an expert witness on extinctions? Should we take his word as law when he says that Neanderthals slept with our ladies while our forefathers were out hunting 40,000 years ago? Does this settle the case and allow us to go back home happy that we have found the mechanism of how the Neanderthals became extinct?