by cofty 191 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
You don't think it's possible that scientists are mistaken about the evidence proving that all life on Earth that we know about has a common ancestor?
So first: evolution is a fact.
Then: the central fact of evolution is that all life shares a common ancestor.
Then: but it's possible we may find life on Earth that doesn't share that ancestor.
Nevertheless: evolution is a fact,
It's possible that I'm a brain in a vat, and that none of you exist but are the product of my imagination. Should this mean that nothing I know is actually a fact?
Similarly, all life on earth shares a common ancestor, and as far as we know, it's a fact. It's possible we're wrong, obviously, but there's no evidence to suggest that.
You do think it is impossible that scientists are mistaken about the evidence proving all life on Earth that we know about has a common ancestor?
Your unwillingness to engage in a genuine effort to understand one another is no better than Dumble Fuck's was.
I have explained my understanding of this question three times and have not contradicted myself once.
Let's imagine that scientists discover that cephalopods all belong to a completely separate family tree. Their ancestor emerged from an Alkaline vent around the same time as the ones that led to every other lifeform on earth.
So what? In the context of evolution v creation it makes not a whit of difference. It would mean adding a footnote to the simple statement that every living thing evolved from a common ancestor but in the context of a debate over creationism it would be irrelevant.
Humans would still be descendants of fish via amphibians, reptiles and a long procession of mammals.
Should this mean that nothing I know is actually a fact? - Saename
SBF abhors "the tyranny of facts". He will not even affirm that the earth is not flat since it is flat from the perspective of a worm and "who is to say the perspective of an astronaut is more valid than that of a worm". I kid you not!
SBF is enthralled by French postmodern relativism.
Tedious arguments about semantics is his forte. In one such conversation I stated that it was a fact that the earth is not flat. SBF replied "it depends on what you mean by the, it depends on what you mean by earth, it depends on what you mean by is, it depends on what you mean by not, it depends on what you mean by flat."
There is literally no form of words, however simple that he will not pick fault with.
More than once I have considered leaving the forum permanently rather than deal with his bullshit.
Yes all of that makes sense of course. If other roots and branches were discovered this would be incorporated into the theory and evolution as a story adapts. But that is rather my point.
You started by saying evolution is a fact. I said it's more complicated than evolution being a fact. You said okay but even if the details of evolution change, common ancestry of all life is a fact. But when I point out this fact may also be subject to revision you agree but insist this doesn't alter the fact of evolution.
Which is problematic because it produces assertions that are in tension with one another:
1. The details of evolution may change but common ancestry of all life is a fact.
2. We may discover that not all life has a common ancestor but this doesn't alter the fact of evolution.
So what is an unalterable fact? Apparently neither evolution nor common ancestry of all life, because as soon as you focus on one the other becomes unstable.
How about if we said - "Every living thing ever discovered descended from one or more common ancestors and evolved into the myriad of extant and extinct species over millions of years"
Would that satisfy you as a fact at the heart of evolution?
As far as we know that's true. But it doesn't mean new information won't necessitate revision.
Incidentally the insertion of the phrase "or more" means a creationist could agree with the statement too.
slimboyfat, are you a proponent of epistemological relativism? This is a vibe I'm getting, especially since cofty's comment that you would not even say that the earth is not flat because it is from the worm's point of view.
If you're not a proponent of this view, how would you specifically define a fact?
it doesn't mean new information won't necessitate revision
Yes it does. This statement is beyond all reasonable doubt. It is as certain as the fact that the earth is not fla ..... oh yeah right.
the insertion of the phrase "or more" means a creationist could agree with the statement too
Only if they had no concern at all for intellectual honesty - oh yeah right again.
evolved into the myriad of extant and extinct species over millions of years..
No creationist would agree with this.
If you're not a proponent of this view, how would you specifically define a fact?
Not on this thread!
