Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

How is this an answer to my questions?Once again, here is the post you are responding to: .
.
. How is that an answer to my questions?What is a humand? If you mean human, then there is a lot of evidence from genetics, paleontology, anatomy and physiology that leads to the conclusion that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. How about you provide actual references showing Dawkins or any other scientist who "claims UCA is a fact, basically posts it as absolute truth"?

What a pile of crap. The only one posting this puke about absolutes is you.Science doesn't allow absolutes as you should well know. You have been schooled many times on this subject. Now you are lying by insisting on a self-serving, intellectually disingenuous definition of "fact" as required to be absolute. Bullshit.Show me where any significant biologist ever stated a scientific fact as absolute. Find a quote by Dawkins, PZ Myers, Ed Wilson, Carol Bertozzi. Find a quote by one of them showing this bullshit hypocrite "absolute" and post it here.Your insistence that fact be 100% certain is rejected. We determine what scientific facts are, not you. We determine our level of confidence in any level of fact we cite, not you.You have erred and been corrected. Your repeat of that error, willingly, knowingly, is called lying. That labels you a liar.Do you accept this or can you acknowledge the error and recognise that science posits no absolutes?

A scientific fact, such as a scientist measuring temperature during an experiment and finding it to be 31.6°C, is information, not absolute truth. That temperature is one of the facts of his experiment, but it is tentative, as are all things in science. Maybe the actual temperature was 31.5°C or 31.7°C, or maybe his temperature measurement equipment was faulty or miscalibrated.If you look up "fact" in a dictionary you'll find it has multiple definitions. One of the definitions includes "certitude, truth". That's not the definition science uses. A fact is a piece of information (often the second definition in the dictionary), not an absolute truth. This reflects a determined effort to not understand the nature of science. Tentativity is at the core of scientific efforts. I suspect that what you find objectionable is that science has a very high confidence level in some areas, evolution in particular.--Percy

You really should learn what words mean before you use them. It is not hostility to call out bullshit and lies.

You should learn to spell words before you comment.Problem with you bunch, is that you are contradicting each other. Some "scientists" say facts don't exist in science, while other "scientists" call many things scientific facts.Many "scientists" say nothing in science can be proven, but that is simply not true. There have been theories about things in nature, that have later been directly observed with new technology, better microscopes and such.Your problem is, you take something as true, just because some scientist has said it. And you hold on to it with your dear life, as an absolute dogma, and all you can do to defend it, is to call people stupid when they disagree with your illogical ideas.

Every measurement has a margin of error. If we measure 31.6 degrees multiple times in multiple ways, we can say that it's a fact that the tempeature is between 20 and 40 degrees.Science is very broad with many different fields. In each field, researchers can have their own defintions. And definitions will often not even stay the same forever.You talk like there is one single definition being used in all if science, in all of the past and unchanging in future.

You are still wrong whether I misspell or not.Maybe we should start with the basics. Where does your understanding of science and the scientific method come from? What is your education level and where were you educated?

That is all you can ever say, others are wrong and not you. Why don't you prove it? Because you can't! You are full of nonsense!

It IS a fact that all science is tentative; it's all subject to further knowledge.But some things are so backed by the evidenced that we've found that we can call them facts - even proven facts - if we want to talk generally about them.Evolution - ie the observation that organisms change over time - is often called a fact now because we've got so much knowledge about it. But Universal Common Descent - a projection from the ToE - is still regarded as a hypothesis - although a strong one. There is less certainty about it - particularly down at the unicellular level.People speak loosely at times and don't always qualify their terms, but it would be really tedious if they did.
​

Thanks for your reply, I agree here.

Prove what?
Why don't you answer my questions?Science is always tentative. We can never assure that we have seen all the evidence, but the overwhelming weight of evidence allows us to make conclusions that we can accept things as "true".

quote:

---

The scientific method (when done right) is a great way of separating subjective opinions and biases from facts. However, the scientific method does not prove the 'truth' about something or a phenomenon -- it is simply a method for approximating the truth and the intricacies of the universe.

---

What is the scientific method: our best tool for unlocking the secrets of the universe.

Different people have different ways of expressing themselves. We're all saying the same thing here in different ways. Tangle is comfortable calling something in science "proven" because he's interpreting "proven" to mean "supported by a mountain of evidence", not "timeless truth." He still accepts the principle of tentativity.Me, I avoid the word "prove" and any related form. But that's just me. I prefer to say that nothing in science is ever proven because that's how I remain consistent with the principle of tentativity. Tangle has a different approach to embracing tentativity, but we're both saying the same thing.You can, if you choose, bog down the discussion by insisting that different ways of expressing things actually represent different understandings. I hope you don't do that.--Percy

If by fact you mean 100% certainty, then no. Tentativity means there can never be 100% certainty. If you'd like to discuss the nature or philosophy of science you should probably open a new thread. In this thread we're just trying to lay down some basic scientific principles in order to assist discussion and improve people's ability to understand what science is actually saying.You've somehow picked up the misimpression that science has made claims of "absolute truth." This is undoubtedly false, and we're just trying to explain that to you.--Percy

Oh. I had that wrong. I thought this thread was for kicking creationists in the nuts. I assume they know the science. They just twist, ignore, lie, distort it for their fantasy and just correcting the science is not enough compensation for their evil crime of spouting intellectual poison so I thought kicking them in the nuts was appropriate.My bad.

Because you are in no position to question anybody's education, as you yourself has shown nothing but inferior intelligence.