Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)

[Grumblenuts]

The artful dodger. Credit where due. Great command of language. Sure beats reading the usual suspects' piffle.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I never said you stated that.

Yes you did:

I never made any such admission, you are lying.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes you did:

View attachment 994003

I never made any such admission, you are lying.

I didn't say you did. I say your actions show you are lying to say you don't accept some theories as true. And I argued it with examples.

Which probably looks pretty foreign to you, since you have been very long on assertions, but very short on specifics in support of those assertions. .

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I didn't say you did. I say your actions show you are lying to say you don't accept some theories as true. And I argued it with examples.

Did you write that post? of course you did, so did you write the words "Clearly you admit some theories are true"? again, yes you did. Did I "admit some theories are true"? No, I never did do that, it is a false claim made by you, aka a lie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Clearly you admit some theories are true"?

I sure did. Using your own actions as the evidence. The idea "your mouth doesn't admit it" is not compelling, in the face of the pile of evidence.

See how that works? Noticing a pattern?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When will these guys learn?

This weak attempt to cast doubt on "any and all theories" simply does not work. They are describing the default position of every single scientist when approaching a new idea.

But it fails miserably in the face of extremely well supported theories that can confidently be regarded as true.

The scientists STARTED at the default position and followed the evidence. True theories are supported by ALL the evidence and observation.

The charlatan describes a hurdle that was cleared long ago, for the most robust and true theories.

Like, Electromagnetism. Like, Evolution. Like, general relativity

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I sure did. Using your own actions as the evidence. The idea "your mouth doesn't admit it" is not compelling, in the face of the pile of evidence.

See how that works? Noticing a pattern?

Yes, you keep lying.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, you keep lying.

Your actions show that you are lying.

Again, see the pattern? Come with evidence, or don't come at all.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But it fails miserably in the face of extremely well supported theories that can confidently be regarded as true.

No they cannot:

You said earlier "this isn't my first rodeo" well can you explain why you keep falling off your horse?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now the only avenue left to him is to say that he does not accept any theory as true.

None of them

It's that, or admit what he is saying is useless.

So here we see a very good example of what marrying an irrational idea and internalizing it does to a person. Look at the absurd positions they are forced to take, not out of honesty or reason, but out of desperation and necessity to keep a bad idea on life support.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No they cannot:

View attachment 994012

You said earlier "this isn't my first rodeo" well can you explain why you keep falling off your horse?

I am aware of the strict definition of a scientific theory. Science cannot prove anything. Proofs are for mathematics.

But it is a fact that some theories are true. Science itself cannot render any explanation "100% true". Science is an algorithm that only does what it does.

But human beings can accept explanations as being supported beyond any reasonable doubt. And we know that some theories are, indeed, true. Because facts exist. Some things are indeed true.

You have not scored a point, here. The same scientists that agree with that strict definition will also then call the Theory of Evolution a fact, for any and all practical purposes.

No, you didn't outsmart them all with a 3 second Google search. Sorry.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 994014

Already covered. Any scientist will agree that science itself doesn't prove anything 100%.

The. The same scientists will assure you that the theory of evolution is so well supported as to be regarded as true.

How do you explain this lack of understanding on your part? How do you explain the chasm between your position and that of the scientists who have done all the work and taught you everything you could ever know?

Could it be that your position is dumb?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But history shows us that even very strong evidence can be misleading.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh boy. Now spamming the same, failed point over and over.

Yet, when he tires out, scientists will still be calling theories "true".

How frustrating for him.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Summarry: "We can't call any explanation "true", because no explanation can ever be known to be true."

An obviously absurd, useless, and failed philosophy.

I especially like that he is relying on his quantum mechanical device to deliver this failed idea to strangers.

I love me some irony.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Given time and rigorous scrutiny, theories that remain unfalsified naturally become regarded as "true" or "factual" -- yes, with the full understanding that one exception could still "prove" it wrong. That can't make the scientific consensus "liars." It can make them mistaken, just as the minority who disagree with the scientific consensus may be mistaken, not necessarily "liars."

 

[Grumblenuts]

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Scientists are rarely unanimous.



There are thousands of research scientists and professors and writers who express strong reservations about many of the claims made by evolution believers.

Genuine seekers after truth should retain an open mind, always be skeptical especially when some start to claim a theory is fact.

For some though fitting into a group is more important than the veracity of their beliefs.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]