True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

I know that I know nothing. Attributed to Socrates,although I he is not recorded as saying that.

F=ma is not absolute or conclusive. Velocity is limited by the speed of light. But it's good enough for almost every situation.The evidence for evolution or old Earth is as close to conclusive as Man can get.Fossilization is extremely rare. Nonetheless we do see thousands of fossil hominems. Did you look before you asked? How much evidence have scientists found for human evolution? | by John Hawks | Medium, Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program.A very impressive prediction is the prediction that a fossil like Tiktaalik would be found in Devonian rocks. Tiktaalik roseae: Home#, http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/.There's so much evidence it's difficult to pick out the best. The best forms of evidence supporting the theory are, IMHO, the consilience between independent methods of measuring the same thing. For example the twin nested hierarchy and the agreement between many independent dating methods, particularly for the last 50,000 years or so: No creationist has ever made a credible attempt to explain the obvious pattern.None of these are suitable for discussion in this topic, and there may be topics already that are still open.

What a steaming heap. You got substantive replies and ignored them.No, not every damn argument here has involved religion. Message 19, Message 18, Message 17, Message 11. Are you here to post incoherent rants or discuss? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

That's what left a sour taste in your mouth? It's a simple statement of fact.

They laid out human evolution as linear to make some points, but the "ascent of man" model is out of date. It's misleading because a real graph looks more like a tree with branches (lying on its side in the following). Scientific conclusions are always tentative to some degree although many of them are so well established. I can't comment on the use of such words without context.

Yep, it's the ol' "We don't know everything so we know nothing" ploy.Some fossils are very fragmentary. Many are not. And there is a lot that can be learned from fragments.Some details of particular stages in the evolution of particular organisms are poorly known. Some are not. Enough is known to provide one of the strongest of the many pieces of their evidence that support the ToE. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Again, we don't argue for or against bare links. State the important parts in your own words, then use quotes and links to supply details and support.

And next we have "You gotta show movies of every generation and I still won't accept it."More ignorance, too. I already corrected you on this. Nobody can trace life back to 6.5 billion years because the Earth did not exist 6.5 billion years ago, and wouldn't come on stage for about two billion years. It is not. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.