Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Compare and contrast any 3 of them. Show us these other definitions, WookieB. Do they differ significantly? Does one involve dragons? Sources, of course, will be necessary and should be extensive enough to challenge the modern synthesis.

What claim about the scientific method are you referring to? Really, you need to be more specific, rather than asking such vague questions.You claim my approach is broken. What approach exactly? And what evidence do you have for your claim, which facts and what arguments and what logic?

You call me illiterate, while using a straw man. Because your description of how I see things, are totally inaccurate.

You have been asked multiple times to provide actual references of Dawkins or any other evolutionary biologist making any claims about absolute truth, but you have completely disregarded those requests. This leads to the obvious conclusion that you just made it all up and that you have neither seen nor read any evolutionary biologists making claims about scientific conclusions being absolute truth.If you hadn't made it up you would have shouted out the evidence and rubbed our noses in it.

It's most scientist who belief evolution to be both theory and fact. The evolution theory is about evolution from a common ancestry, with UCA as most plausible, and seperate common ancestors as less likely. So yeah, most biologists see common ancestry in one version or another as fact.How about you? Which part of evolution theory do you consider to be fact?

Why are you continuing with these pointless semantics? Do they have some real-life importance to you? What point are you trying to get across and if you're rejecting our answers why?From here it just looks like you¡re stuck in a corner. We'll happily lets you out if you can give us a an indication of where you think you're going with this.When discussing stuff casually scientists will use all sorts of language but I doubt you’ll find any that provide an unqualified answer to a specific scientific question.

Please show where he called you illiterate. Please outline the strawman he used. You say a lot of things but there is nothing to back any of it up so far.

Stuck in a corner? Then tell me which part do you disagree with and why?

You can use the search function yourself. I'm not your secretary.

And you misunderstand that.We observe change over time. That's evolution as fact.The theory is an attempted explanation of what we observer.Scientists are clear about the distinction between what we observe (fact) and the theory that attempts to explain it. Yes, we use some of the same vocabulary for each. But the distinction is still quite clear -- except, perhaps, to creationists.

Yet, most of you here argue as if evolution theory of common ancestry is just as much a fact.

I have no idea what I'm disagreeing with - I've lost the plot.As far as I can gather you're trying to tell us that science claims absolute truths about things. But that's so obviously false I doubt you're saying that. So I'm trying to understand what it is you're saying. Perhaps it would help if you could just remind us of your position? Maybe we're not in disagreement?

Even the principle of tentativity is tentative. It is supported by a mountain of evidence, but our certainty about the principle can never reach 100%.--Percy

I believe Granny Magda is referring to your belief that the scientific process can arrive at 100% certainty, and that there are scientists out their declaring some things as absolute truth. We're still waiting for valid arguments for the former and evidence for the latter.--Percy

This was your opportunity to set the record straight on how you see things, but you instead continued on your chosen path of extreme brevity, ambiguity, ignorance, unsupported and apparently baseless criticism, and insult.--Percy