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

[Clownboat]

Marke: How long has evolution been a fact? Since the beginning of creation? How does one go about proving such a massive claim? Has it always been true that all life evolved from a single-celled original life form, which was a foundational evolutionist belief for decades? Are some evolutionist theories still unsettled and debatable?

We may as well admit that evolution is an evolving theory in which it is not uncommon for old ideas to be debunked by new findings.

Nope, it is a fact and one that is well established.

The fact of evolution refers to the well-established observation that life on Earth has changed over time, resulting in the diversity of species we see today. It's a fundamental principle in biology, supported by extensive evidence from various fields, including genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy.

You simply deny this fact, while also denying genetics, paleontology and comparative anatomy to name just a few.

It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory

Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6428117/

When biologists say that "evolution is a fact," I think they mean that they accept the following statement so firmly that they consider it to be as true as any basic sensory fact: each species arose from another species that preceded it in time, and higher taxa arose by a continuation of the speciation processes.
https://ncse.ngo/theory-and-fact-evolution

That is, it is a fact that organisms have changed throughout time as seen through data.
https://sites.nd.edu/james-applewhite/2 ... r-fiction/

[marke]

Marke: Faith in debatable evolutionist theories does not make evolutionist theories irrefutable facts.

Marke, I never said it did. In fact, I abhor using faith in my life because faith is a mechanism that is required in order to believe that something false is in fact true. Therefore, faith should be avoided if the goal is to arrive at truths.

What I did claim is that evolution is a fact, because evolution is a fact. You choose not to challenge me on this, because you know it is a true claim. Instead you lay faith at my feet as if you and I are using the same reasoning when we are not.

You have faith beliefs and I have factual beliefs about this topic.

Marke: Your blind faith in unprovable evolution theories is noted.

[Clownboat]

Marke: Faith in debatable evolutionist theories does not make evolutionist theories irrefutable facts.

Marke, I never said it did. In fact, I abhor using faith in my life because faith is a mechanism that is required in order to believe that something false is in fact true. Therefore, faith should be avoided if the goal is to arrive at truths.

What I did claim is that evolution is a fact, because evolution is a fact. You choose not to challenge me on this, because you know it is a true claim. Instead you lay faith at my feet as if you and I are using the same reasoning when we are not.

You have faith beliefs and I have factual beliefs about this topic.

Marke: Your blind faith in unprovable evolution theories is noted.

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]

Marke: Faith in debatable evolutionist theories does not make evolutionist theories irrefutable facts.

Marke, I never said it did. In fact, I abhor using faith in my life because faith is a mechanism that is required in order to believe that something false is in fact true. Therefore, faith should be avoided if the goal is to arrive at truths.

What I did claim is that evolution is a fact, because evolution is a fact. You choose not to challenge me on this, because you know it is a true claim. Instead you lay faith at my feet as if you and I are using the same reasoning when we are not.

You have faith beliefs and I have factual beliefs about this topic.

Marke: Your blind faith in unprovable evolution theories is noted.

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.

[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.

[Difflugia]

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

You're right. There are many, many more than one.

[bluegreenearth]

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

The problem of Underdetermination and the problem of Induction prohibits any quantity or quality of evidence from serving to prove a claim about our perceived external reality as being true. For this reason, science functions by testing falsifiable claims for the purpose of ruling-out those that can be disproved by the evidence. When a potentially falsifiable claim survives all tests designed to try and disprove it, this outcome provides a justification to tentatively accept it as the most reasonable explanation until such a time (if ever) that new evidence emerges to falsify it. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a potentially falsifiable claim that continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove it. Therefore, it is justifiably accepted as the most reasonable explanation until such a time (if ever) that it becomes falsified by newly discovered evidence. So, it is not appropriate to demand "proof" of humans evolving from a common ancestor with peanuts because science does not function in that capacity. Instead, try asking about the evidence scientists would expect to find if the claim about evolution is false and then determine if such disconfirming evidence exists.

Note: The problem of underdetermination and the problem of induction apply to unfalsifiable claims as well. They are never proved true by any quantity or quality of evidence for the same reason. However, no quantity or quality of evidence will ever function to disprove an unfalsifiable claim either. Therefore, it is impossible to rule-out any unfalsifiable claims regardless of the evidence for or against them. Accordingly, where multiple unfalsifiable claims exist, the collection and analysis of the available evidence does not serve to reveal the one that provides the most reasonable or justified explanation.

[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.

[marke]

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

You're right. There are many, many more than one.

Marke: Scientists cannot offer any logical explanation detailing the biological pathway from plants to animals but faithful evolutionist theorists can and do offer their highly debatable unprovable opinions.

[marke]

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

The problem of Underdetermination and the problem of Induction prohibits any quantity or quality of evidence from serving to prove a claim about our perceived external reality as being true. For this reason, science functions by testing falsifiable claims for the purpose of ruling-out those that can be disproved by the evidence. When a potentially falsifiable claim survives all tests designed to try and disprove it, this outcome provides a justification to tentatively accept it as the most reasonable explanation until such a time (if ever) that new evidence emerges to falsify it. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a potentially falsifiable claim that continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove it. Therefore, it is justifiably accepted as the most reasonable explanation until such a time (if ever) that it becomes falsified by newly discovered evidence. So, it is not appropriate to demand "proof" of humans evolving from a common ancestor with peanuts because science does not function in that capacity. Instead, try asking about the evidence scientists would expect to find if the claim about evolution is false and then determine if such disconfirming evidence exists.

Note: The problem of underdetermination and the problem of induction apply to unfalsifiable claims as well. They are never proved true by any quantity or quality of evidence for the same reason. However, no quantity or quality of evidence will ever function to disprove an unfalsifiable claim either. Therefore, it is impossible to rule-out any unfalsifiable claims regardless of the evidence for or against them. Accordingly, where multiple unfalsifiable claims exist, the collection and analysis of the available evidence does not serve to reveal the one that provides the most reasonable or justified explanation.

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.