Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Wow! Is there anything that you are not completely wrong about? Or are you just projecting your own deficiencies onto others?Instead, it is theism that claims to have complete and perfect knowledge, whereas atheism is just saying "No, you don't have complete and perfect knowledge, especially about the supernatural." You also believe (and depend on entirely) in human infallibility, while we reject such a ridiculous belief.Rather and clearly, it is the concept of theism that is irrational, because it implies complete and perfect knowledge of the supernatural which has been passed down perfectly and without error for many generations over millennia (ie, human infallibility), all of which is completely beyond human capability.Theists claim to have complete and perfect knowledge about the supernatural and want to sell us their bill of goods. Atheists just refuse to buy that pig in a poke.Seeing through a swindle and not falling for it is quite rational.

Kleinman:

---

Even the concept of atheism is irrational. It implies the knowledge of everything in the universe.

dwise1:

---

Wow! Is there anything that you are not completely wrong about? Or are you just projecting your own deficiencies onto others?
​
Instead, it is theism that claims to have complete and perfect knowledge, whereas atheism is just saying "No, you don't have complete and perfect knowledge, especially about the supernatural." You also believe (and depend on entirely) in human infallibility, while we reject such a ridiculous belief.
​
Rather and clearly, it is the concept of theism that is irrational, because it implies complete and perfect knowledge of the supernatural which has been passed down perfectly and without error for many generations over millennia (ie, human infallibility), all of which is completely beyond human capability.
​
Theists claim to have complete and perfect knowledge about the supernatural and want to sell us their bill of goods. Atheists just refuse to buy that pig in a poke.
​
Seeing through a swindle and not falling for it is quite rational.

---

---

Don't you know the policy, you need to post on topic. Perhaps you want to try and do the mathematics of descent with modification and adaptation and explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Here are two publications that show how the math is done.
For the Kishony experiment which evolves in an environment with a single selection pressure and with minimal competition such that fixation is not required:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for the Lenski experiment which evolves in an environment with a single selection pressure but has intense competition such that fixation is required at each adaptive mutational step:
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment
If you find the mathematics hard to understand when fixation and adaptation must both occur for the evolutionary process, here is a short presentation video that explains the steps in detail for the Lenski experiment:
The Lenski Long Term Evolution Experimentdwise1, if you feel that the mathematics is wrong, point out the error(s). If you think the physics is wrong, point that out. I don't think you will find any errors in either the math or the physics. This mathematics very closely fits the behavior of both the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments and biologists have not understood or presented the behavior of either experiment correctly.

Maybe we've seen the last of him.

There are people in science who are humble enough to recognize the limitations of our science. And there are people who are more haughty when posting scientific findings as absolute truth.

Who? Post examples.

Most people in science understand the tentativity of all scientific findings and would be unlikely to label it as absolute truth. Most would probably label accepted theories and principles of science as the best understanding we have at the current time.Do you have any examples of scientists making claims of absolute truth?--Percy

Percy:

---

Do you have any examples of scientists making claims of absolute truth?

---

Every scientist who claims UCA is a fact, basically posts it as absolute truth, if you ask me. Do you agree on this or do you see it differently?Dawkins does it, I think. Among many others.

Wrong!

You think? Please supply some references to these claims of absolute truth. Vague handwaving is not going to cut it.

Let me ask you this question then.Do you consider it to be a fact that humand and chimps share a common ancestor?

All of the scientific evidence supports this conclusion. Until there is evidence to change this conclusion it can be accepted as a scientific fact. In science all conclusions are tentative, but the weight for this is overwhelming. Do you have data or evidence to question this conclusion?I noticed you did not provide references to support your initial claim. Answering a question with a leading question is poor form and frowned upon. If you do not have support for your claims you should probably just crawl back in your hole. This is not a collection of idiots here. They will hand you your ass.

Many scientist claim similar things along the line that common ancestry is (scientific) fact. You can simply ask them directly yourself when you encounter one. I don't remember every conversation or comment.If you find ask ten scientist and find that all of them deny common ancestry to be a fact, then you win. But until then, you have nothing but dumb accusation, while you yourself post it as absolute scientific truth.

Scientific fact ≠ Absolute truth.Are you just ignorant, willfully ignorant, or a spreader of falsehoods?What was my "dumb accusation"? Your posts are as clear as mud.

There are a huge number of scientists and scientific writing out there. I'm sure there are examples of scientific writing referring to LUCA or UCA as a fact, but the scientific consensus is that it is a hypothesis. The consensus is expressed here in Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia: The word "fact" does not appear in the article. Tentativity is a key principle within science. Here's an article by Dawkins that appeared in the New York Times where he fails to call LUCA a fact: Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things - The New York TimesNaturally the more evidence supporting a hypothesis or theory the less tentative we feel about it, but there is never any such thing as absolute certainty in science. Given that this thread is up to nearly a thousand messages I'm sure this has already been explained here many times.--Percy

You are always hostile, aren't you.If something is not 100% certain, you cannot call it a fact, whether you add "scientific" or not.You can disagree all you want, but you are just being hypocrite, posting absolutes while pretending not to.