Why do some ignore the obvious truth about skin color?

[Tcg]

.

This seems like a good time to present the truth revealed in this excellent video by Forest Valkai.



Why do some ignore the obvious truth about skin color presented here?


Tcg

[Difflugia]

Scientists cannot offer any logical explanation detailing the biological pathway from plants to animals

They absolutely can, your denial notwithstanding. Whether your denial is based in dogmatism, ignorance, or an unholy alliance of the two, scientists aren't so limited.

The logical explanation is that all eukaryotes share a common ancestor. The most recent common ancestor between green plants and animals existed prior to either multicellular plants or animals. One of the many ways we know this is that multicellular green plants all share similar cell walls, while green algae have a number of different kinds of cell walls. There are unicellular green algae that share cell wall composition with modern multicellular plants, ergo the division occurred prior to the ancestors of modern green plants becoming multicellular.

but faithful evolutionist theorists can and do offer their highly debatable unprovable opinions.

Read a book.

[marke]

Scientists cannot offer any logical explanation detailing the biological pathway from plants to animals

They absolutely can, your denial notwithstanding. Whether your denial is based in dogmatism, ignorance, or an unholy alliance of the two, scientists aren't so limited.

The logical explanation is that all eukaryotes share a common ancestor. The most recent common ancestor between green plants and animals existed prior to either multicellular plants or animals. One of the many ways we know this is that multicellular green plants all share similar cell walls, while green algae have a number of different kinds of cell walls. There are unicellular green algae that share cell wall composition with modern multicellular plants, ergo the division occurred prior to the ancestors of modern green plants becoming multicellular.

but faithful evolutionist theorists can and do offer their highly debatable unprovable opinions.

Read a book.

Marke: You cannot claim that the idea that all life shares a common ancestor proves all life forms share a common ancestor. I said there is no logical or biologically mapped pathway for plant life to evolve into animal life.

[bluegreenearth]

Marke: For Christians the record that God created Adam and Eve as the first humans is an irrefutable fact. For many unbelievers evolution serves as the best opposing theory they can come up with until they can find another.[/b]

Please be advised that not all people who self-identify as Christian believe in a literal Adam and Eve (see Pew Research Center). So, you shouldn't presume to speak on behalf of all Christians.

In response to your assertion above, all proposed facts about the external world are potentially refutable, at least on a philosophical level. While I do not identify as a Solipsist, the philosophical idea of Solipsism remains as a valid refutation. Therefore, the problem of underdetermination is not resolved by simply declaring a claim to be an irrefutable fact without any reasonable justification.

[Difflugia]

You cannot claim that the idea that all life shares a common ancestor proves all life forms share a common ancestor.

I don't have to. We have far more than the idea, in that we have a vast repository of data, all of which supports a pattern of common ancestry to arbitrary precision.

I said there is no logical or biologically mapped pathway for plant life to evolve into animal life.

You say lots of things, most of which are wrong. This is one of them.

[Clownboat]

Your inability to debate is noted.
Evolution remains a fact and faith is not needed for anyone willing to put in a little work.

Marke: There is not one scientific proof that humans evolved from a common ancestor with peanuts.

Why do you fail so horribly at addressing what I actually say?
You quote me here, but fail to address what my claim was and instead you seem to have invented some other claim, that you then pretend I made, when I didn't.

It stands: Evolution is a fact and faith is not needed for anyone willing to put in the work. This is true, no matter what DIFFERENT/OTHER argument marke makes that has nothing to do with the claim they quoted.

Marke: Evolutionism is faith in an unproven and unprovable theory.

Evolution has many converging evidences and therefore is not faith based. You make this false statement for one reason and one reason only and that is in a weak attempt to try to level the playing field.
You are correct about theories though. Theories are not proven as proof is for math and whiskey, but they must be falsifiable like evolution is (just fine one fossil out of place for example).

Bottom line, we cannot prove our best theories. Therefore we must acknowledge them as being the best explanation until falsified or something better is offered. You are not doing this though. All you are doing is denying our best explanation for religious reasons. I find your reasoning to be invalid and will maintain to accept our best explanation until it is falsified or a better explanation is offered.

I assume you will continue to do religion while denying science.

[marke]

Marke: For Christians the record that God created Adam and Eve as the first humans is an irrefutable fact. For many unbelievers evolution serves as the best opposing theory they can come up with until they can find another.[/b]

Please be advised that not all people who self-identify as Christian believe in a literal Adam and Eve (see Pew Research Center). So, you shouldn't presume to speak on behalf of all Christians.

In response to your assertion above, all proposed facts about the external world are potentially refutable, at least on a philosophical level. While I do not identify as a Solipsist, the philosophical idea of Solipsism remains as a valid refutation. Therefore, the problem of underdetermination is not resolved by simply declaring a claim to be an irrefutable fact without any reasonable justification.

Marke: Of course not all people who claim to believe the Bible actually believe God created the first humans, and not all unbelievers believe nobody created the first humans, but as a general rule people are divided into those two major systems of belief by faith without scientific proof.

[marke]

You cannot claim that the idea that all life shares a common ancestor proves all life forms share a common ancestor.

I don't have to. We have far more than the idea, in that we have a vast repository of data, all of which supports a pattern of common ancestry to arbitrary precision.

I said there is no logical or biologically mapped pathway for plant life to evolve into animal life.

You say lots of things, most of which are wrong. This is one of them.

Marke: Claiming data supports a theory is one thing, getting the data to prove the theory or disprove an alternate theory is an entirely different thing.

[marke]

Your inability to debate is noted.
Evolution remains a fact and faith is not needed for anyone willing to put in a little work.

Marke: There is not one scientific proof that humans evolved from a common ancestor with peanuts.

Why do you fail so horribly at addressing what I actually say?
You quote me here, but fail to address what my claim was and instead you seem to have invented some other claim, that you then pretend I made, when I didn't.

It stands: Evolution is a fact and faith is not needed for anyone willing to put in the work. This is true, no matter what DIFFERENT/OTHER argument marke makes that has nothing to do with the claim they quoted.

Marke: Evolutionism is faith in an unproven and unprovable theory.

Evolution has many converging evidences and therefore is not faith based. You make this false statement for one reason and one reason only and that is in a weak attempt to try to level the playing field.
You are correct about theories though. Theories are not proven as proof is for math and whiskey, but they must be falsifiable like evolution is (just fine one fossil out of place for example).

Bottom line, we cannot prove our best theories. Therefore we must acknowledge them as being the best explanation until falsified or something better is offered. You are not doing this though. All you are doing is denying our best explanation for religious reasons. I find your reasoning to be invalid and will maintain to accept our best explanation until it is falsified or a better explanation is offered.

I assume you will continue to do religion while denying science.

Marke: Faith in interpretations of data called "evidences" is not the same thing as proof the interpretations of data are irrefutable.

[bluegreenearth]

Marke: Claiming data supports a theory is one thing, getting the data to prove the theory or disprove an alternate theory is an entirely different thing.

Marke: Faith in interpretations of data called "evidences" is not the same thing as proof the interpretations of data are irrefutable.

Why do you keep insisting upon having irrefutable proof when the problem of underdetermination exposes the impossibility of proving any claim is true? It is only possible for evidence to disprove falsifiable claims. Unfalsifiable claims can be neither proved nor disproved by any quantity or quality of evidence. So, the best you can hope for is a falsifiable claim that continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove it.