Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)

[westwall]

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."

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one. Science deals with things that either "are", or "are not".

We use OBSERVABLE facts, and OBSERVATIONS, and MEASUREMENT to define the reality that is before us.

A theory is merely a guess about how that reality we are observing, came to be.

Thus, if your theory is not measurable, nor falsifiable, it is not scientific. It is pseudo scientific.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Scientists are rarely unanimous.

^That appearing directly after a quote of me apparently stating:

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.

That was, in fact, a direct quote excerpted from the reference:

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences: Second Edition.​

I provided the link in my previous post. Perhaps you don't mean to argue with the National Academy of Sciences..
-- o r m a y b e y o u d o o o. In either case:

Don't like the term "unanimous"? Simple. Stop using it. No one else was.

Continue presuming to 'splain "science" and shit like an idiot to people you don't know at all. You'll Shirley go far.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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."

Scientists are no longer actively testing the base hypothesis. It has been accepted as true. Common Descent is true. True things are facts.

Scientists from all fields are at the point now where they simply aim to understand how it happened. To use it for useful predictions. To use it to corroborate or falsify other hypotheses about past events.

Another good example: the Age of the Earth.

Scientists accept that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This is accepted as fact. No longer are we actively trying to prove it false.

But all are welcome to try.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Consensus is a political term

Not when speaking of the consensus of the evidence, it isn't.

So everyone can feel free to keep using the term consensus as much as you like. These attempts to stain the word are in bad faith and are part of a specious attempt to sow doubt where it doesn't really exist.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Scientists are no longer actively testing the base hypothesis. It has been accepted as true. Common Descent is true. True things are facts.

Scientists from all fields are at the point now where they simply aim to understand how it happened. To use it for useful predictions. To use it to corroborate or falsify other hypotheses about past events.

Another good example: the Age of the Earth.

Scientists accept that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This is accepted as fact. No longer are we actively trying to prove it false.

But all are welcome to try.

No argument. I choose not to speak for "Scientists" is all.