Homo sapiens' footprints (so to speak) do not travel back in time unambiguously to the ocean. Are you saying they do? Provide evidence for that here, please.Dexter wrote:Yeah, sorry, I still don't get it.ant wrote:You're that upset that Dawkins used a specific example to make his point, illustrating a theory that you supposedly agree with? As I said, the point of the thought experiment was to illustrate the gradual change that MUST have happened based on overwhelming evidence, which you say you agree with.
HEY!! READ MY LIPS!!!
I MADE IT CLEAR WHAT EXACTLY I WAS/AM DISAGREEING WITH DAWKINS HERE!
GO BACK AND READ MY POST(S). YOU ARE BEING ARGUMENTATIVE HERE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT AND NOTHING ELSE!
I ALSO COMMENTED ABOUT WHAT THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE OF!
WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU EFFIN GET???!!!
As I've said before, and it is something that is not in dispute, Evolution is theory laden. Saying so is not the same thing as saying it is strictly a theory. Where have I indicated the process of evolution is not true? Show me.
Again, It's not a clear linear path to the Pacific Ocean for homo sapiens. Not yet, at least.
How do we know we weren't seeded here by one of Interbane's ET planets?
We gather as much empirical evidence as we can and create a narrative we hope has enough explanatory vigor.
Historical interpretation is inductive. Can you tell me how it is we arrive at objective truth from inductive processes?