True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

No one is claiming that, but the evidence does lead to more accurate conclusions than wild ass guesses. And over time collecting more and more evidence leads to more and more accurate conclusions. Well, if you mean here at EvC, it is a debate forum, so people come here specifically to argue. Regular members here don't take issues with legitimate questions, but they do get short with people who ask silly questions that we refer to as PRATTs, that is "Points Refutted A Thousand Times".Your thread title "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing". is a silly generalization. Some people know lots of things and they also realize they will never know everything. Knowledge is cumulative and that is the crowning achievement of humanity, discovering ways to compile and store knowledge in ways that make it available to all. Bless the librarians.

Well, "some people" is pretty general. Are you saying some people here at EvC claim to know everything? That's a bit vague, isn't it? What evidence are you claiming is inconclusive? Be specific. Who are you talking about? No, I was pointing out that there is a whole class of questions that have been answered many times before. They are so common that we have a name for them: PRATTs No one said anything about your questions being outrageous. People can answer your questions, but you have to be willing to learn something and not ride in all convinced that no one can. When someone shows up making inaccurate claims about what science or biology or evolutionary theory says and then demands an immediate accounting the likely result will be us pointing out that your version of evolution is inaccurate. We do see thousands of intermediate fossils in the human lineage. One of my favorite predictions is that life fits into nested hierarchies when we classify them. This holds true for morphological classification as well as genetic. These nested hierarchies show how life is interrelated. You did seem to arrive with a chip on your shoulder. You claim not to be a creationist, but your questions and claims about science (physics & math & biology) show a lack of knowledge and understanding how science works. Yep, we know, Creationists.

So both have the same traits, but you are incapable of listing them and you wouldn't even try anyway. What does this even mean? Do you even know the definition of "inbreeding"? And what does it have to do with the theory of evolution? And you weren't here either. Good, we win! You were a push over.

Well, you have succeeded in enlightening us that you know nothing. It's ridiculous.

How funny. You seem to be the only one who is ruffled. Oh, hundreds at least, all armed with facts too. Well, the one man part is true, but kid you don't have even the most rudimentary knowledge of the Theory of Evolution. You are deluded with your grandeur. Well, that would be great except you seem to have forgotten the part where you actually have to do something to make an exposure.We're waiting......we have seen creationists who know a whole lot more than you have demonstrated and so far none of them have succeeded in refuting the actual Theory of Evolution. If you want to debate evolution, you should know the subject frontwards and backwards, otherwise, you make yourself look ridiculous.You lose. You're going to need to up your game a whole lot if you want to find holes in the Theory of Evolution. Yep, run away and boast how you defeated dozens of vicious fanatical evolutionists.Don't come back until you know what a scientific theory is. Sheeeeesh.

Of a marshmallow.