Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Wow. You almost got something right.Birds did descend from dinos that did descend from reptiles. And mammals did descend from tiktaalik that did descend from fish.That you don't see these facts, despite the weight of data points available in evidence, shows just how intellectually blind (via religion) you have become.The rest of your post was your personal butt-hurt tripe. I'll pass.

The facts of evolution are not hidden in a secret holy room in some church. They are available at museums and schools world wide for all to see and learn.Religion lies about its gods and it's myths of creation and cannot produce any evidence for their fantasies.Evolution has the facts and the evidence for all to see. All you need do, Dredge, is go see for yourself. I know schools, museums, knowledge in general scares you, Cracker muncher, but you can get through it. The knowledge is there for you. Let the scales fall from your eyes so you can see.

Idiot.

Photosynthesis was not what vimesey was seeing but a scared lonely little man in his closed world screaming nothings into the void. It’s called a caricature. In this case, not a favorable one. Kleinman the Plankton.

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?

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.

Can you be 100% certain the water is liquid? Pressure is the bigger factor than temperature. Has it already sublimated into a plasma?And, you are right. The ban on 100% certainty is philosophic. Science knows from philosophy and math that we will never have all the information in the universe. That's factual. That means, philosophically and actually, we can never have 100% knowledge of anything ever. We can only have such a high enough confidence level that we accept the item as fact.Now history is a different matter. With proper sources and attributions we can pretty much have a 100% confidence level is some historic occurrences. Others, not so much. Think of the difference in saying "The sun came up this morning," versus "The snake talked." 100% certain on the former, not so much the latter.

Well, I'm almost 100% certain you are probably right.

First, according to quantum field theory, our most accurate models of all things particles and energy, there is a vanishingly small, but real probability your one die stands up on a corner showing no face up.Second, do you know about Heisenberg? Again in QTF there are measurement restrictions. The more accurate your measure of position the less refined your measure of momentum, and visa versa. The same for time and energy along with a number of other complementary variables. You cannot measure both to the same fine degree. This is at the most basic level of reality. We can never have 100% certainty. The very operations of this universe forbids it.

BS! You never mentioned a corner. Your claim is 100% pip on top when the die lands. That is wrong. Your 100% is more accurately 0.99999+% I don't know what this means. If this is your understanding of Heisenberg then there is no need to continue. The Uncertainty Principle deals with the uncertain precision of measurement. Again you try to obscure the facts with your false stringent definitions.Of course it is about precision. The more precise the measure of the one attribute the more uncertain, less precise, can be your measure of the other. And, not any two attributes can be conflicted. Only specific attributes of the particles eigenstate are subject to this uncertainty in precise measurement. Before you continue, learn something first.The take away here is that 100% certainty is not allowed in this universe.

Yes, your display of knowledge in QM and in all of science is quite telling.

Entertainment? Like a palm reader has her script of open-ended loaded questions, sensei's schtick is as a science nerd who doesn't know anything.

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.

Do you really think a difference of pedantic trivialities in word usage justifies the lie there are other definitions of evolution?There is only the one. Part of the fun is you get to choose which form of the definition you like best, as long as it conforms to the modern synthesis.You do know about the modern synthesis? The Theory Of Evolution (TOE). The only definition of evolution that, in reality, actually exists. Go read that. That's what we're talking about.There is only the one.Unless you have some other, less trivially-based alternative you would care to share.

He can't because, I for one, do consider common descent to be a 100% proven fact of evolution. Well, ok, as 100% as science allows, which, at this confidence level is so strong as to allow me to conclude 100% certainty because I damned well want to define it that way whether the universe allows that reality or not. The practical reality is so compelling as to not care about my logic error. Common ancestry, LUCA, is a fact, absolutely.