Direct evidence/Indirect evidence...doesn't matter...the evidence is lacking either way. Second, "it takes millions of years" is begging the question. Prove that it happened in the first place before you start talking about how long it takes to happen.
Cart before the horse fallacy.
Second, again; "given enough time, anything can happen" is simply a con. Ok, I will pay that game, too...
"Given enough time, there will exist a supernatural being who will create the universe".
There, given enough time, anything can happen. I can play that game too.
But sir it's irrelevant to my argument if evolution happened or not.
Let's admit for sake of argument that it did not happened.
One brings forth the hypothesis that "over millions of years the reptiles evolved into birds"
What you are doing is still moronic/dishonest, asking for direct evidence("eyeball test") for an proposed event that it supposed to take millions of years.
Your correct to ask for evidence for a claim/hypothesis but to ask for evidence that can't be brought forth is just stupid/dishonest.
It's like one makes the claim: "a deist god exists".
And you come and demand a specific kind of evidence: â€œthat God intervenes in the universe, in human affairs.â€�
That sir is stupid/dishonest for the hypothesis is that: "a deist god does not intervene in the universe, in human affairs.â€�
Here a dialog to be better show the chronic stupidity:
One man: A deist god exist.
You: Do you have evidence that this god cures people, punishes others, brings calamities upon others?
The man: No because it is indifferent to what happens, does not care.
You: Haha, then I do not believe it does exist.
Q: Isn't that just plainly stupid, huh?
Did you not understand what I said? I said; my belief in Yahweh is NOT based upon observation, by my belief in science/nature IS based on observation (along with experiment, and prediction).
The methodology is different. Now, I don't know what part of that you don't understand, but certainly no straw man was committed so I don't know what you are talking about.
I misunderstood "isnâ€™t based" with "is based".
Q: Why make a special case for God?
Q: Why then do you need direct evidence("eyeball test") for evolution but not for God? Why the inconsistency? Is your God not a personal one, one that has a personal relationship with humans, one that intervenes in the universe: listens to prayer, heals humans, bring calamities over others and so one? Can you not make experiments to prove Godâ€™s interventions in the universe? Can you not ask God for direct evidence(â€œeye ball testâ€�)?