Evolution My ToE

[nPeace]

Okay, fair enough. Let's take the specific example you provided (A. afarensis). If humans shared an evolutionary ancestry with other primates, what do you think a "transitional fossil" in that scenario would look like? What sort of characteristics would you expect it to have?

Fly, you are asking me to make an assumption, and then come up with an idea to explain that assumption. Sorry, but I believe this is what has been done by Darwinists.

Yes, very much so. If someone says "there are no transitional fossils" it stands to reason that they would have some idea of what a "transitional fossil" is, don't you think? Whether you believe they exist or not, you should have some idea of what they would be. Otherwise, how can you know whether they exist or not, if you don't even know what they are?


To be blunt....because they have been found, by the thousands....in fact, by the hundreds of thousands. I know you believe otherwise, but paleontologists are not stupid, delusional, or habitual liars.

Only the Creationist ones, right?

That's an interesting claim. Can you support it?

I already did. Can you refute it?

Sticking with human/primate common ancestry, a transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits shared characteristics between primitive apes and modern humans. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Does it? Why? Why do you assume an ancestor and a descendant... and what they would be?

Well, to be accurate here, all you've done so far is say that this is so. You've not done anything to show it to be so. I mean, anyone can go online and say pretty much anything. I can say "the moon is made of cheese", but have I actually made any sort of case that the moon is made of cheese?

What if someone says it because it is true, and they can show you? Anyone can be in denial of what they don't like.
Source
The most serious problem of Theobald’s analysis is that he used aligned sequences compiled by Brown et al., who were interested in resolving the phylogenetic relationships among archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes, including whether each domain of life constitutes a monophyletic clade. So they a priory assumed the existence of UCA. Indeed, alignment is a procedure based on an assumption that the sequences have diverged from a common ancestral sequence. Brown et al. wrote “Individual protein families were first computer aligned and then we manually refined the alignments. We removed poorly conserved regions in individual protein alignments.” This procedure clearly assumes the existence of UCA, and this was not a problem for Brown et al., because what they were interested in was the phylogenetic relationship among all species on Earth, and the existence of UCA was supported by circumstantial evidence. However, in proving the existence of UCA, the alignment procedure should not be used, because it gives a strong bias for the UCA hypothesis.

A scientist said that, and we don't have to be rocket scientists, to know that it happens.
Most of the circumstantial evidence used to support the idea of UCA takes an approach of circular reasoning. A blind man can see that... imo.

Of course, but not all interpretations are equally valid, are they? If a flat-earther "interprets" a NASA photo as a fraud perpetrated by Satan, is that on equal footing with the interpretation that it's a real photo of a spherical earth?

That's a hypothetical, which I don't see has anything to do with circumstantial evidence. The same way one takes a photo, they can video record. It's not that difficult.
We are talking about a real situation. One where an idea can be used to support an idea that is presumed to be true.
Why are we using hypotheses to establish other hypotheses. Is that the correct way of doing science?

As I noted above, a "transitional fossil" under human/primate common ancestry would be a specimen that has a mixture of primitive apelike and humanlike characteristics. Does A. afarensis show that?

All creatures have various traits - some similar to other. Similarities does not mean common ancestry. The varieties of trees all have similar structures A trunk, branches, and leaves. They all require sunlight and water. I already made myself clear about what is assumed by those who have presumed an idea to be true.
A back and forth argument is not going to change what has already been said by either of us.

Or maybe we should take a step back.....have you done any studying at all on A. afarensis?

I looked at the fossils as well as a few wiki articles, and journals. The fossils could be an ape that is slightly different to others. So?

But circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence, just like fingerprints or DNA at a crime scene. So what you wrote above isn't consistent with your earlier statement that there is zero evidence for UCA.

Yes. So I can walk in a room, find fingerprints, DNA, and come to a conclusion that makes my story right, just because I have those things right?

Either you don't quite understand what I said, or you may be seeing only one side of the coin.
If circumstantial evidence is gathered, that never says anything, like, "I did this or that", and I claim that it says A, when it never said A, there is no evidence it says A. I have concluded it says A.
There is no evidence it says A. Is there evidence it says B, or C, or D?
Circumstantial evidence can look like evidence for A, but it may well be evidence for B.
Prove that it's A. The other person will try to prove it is B
Both believe that they are right.

Really Fly. trust me when I say, this was fantastic. Keep it up.

Thanks for explaining...very informative.

The main takeaway for me after reading it, is that you view pretty much everything associated with evolution through a theological/religious lens. IOW, for you this is primarily a spiritual issue, rather than a scientific one. So even if someone were to show you all sorts of evidence supporting UCA, your reflex would be to attribute it to Satan, and figure the person you were talking to was separated from God and scripture.

That's why in my last post to you I said I don't really see any point in showing you scientific evidence. You have a ready-made explanation for whatever is presented.

So given everything you described earlier in this post, I have to wonder.....why do you care about the science? Why do you feel compelled to try and counter it, if this is primarily a theological issue for you?

That's your opinion, and I think it is a wrong one, and I detect a bit of bias, as well as clouded vision... a lot of that.
So basically what you just did, apparently, is deny all Creationists - who question, or deny the hypothesis (idea) of UCA - the ability, and right to apply the words of biologist Masatoshi Nei.
"...any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it. .... Most people have not questioned it. Most textbooks still state this is so. Most students are educated with these books.

You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions. That is what’s important in science."

You have pretty much just said that we are not capable of using commonsense to examine anything.
Isn't that the way you have been thinking all along in this conversation... and all because we do not accept an idea which you believe, and which has not been verified to be true.
You are only now outright admitting it. Isn't that true? Isn't that how you really feel? Be honest with me Fly.

Honestly, it's just as easy for you to go back through our conversation and find the posts where that's covered. And given the recent turn our conversation has taken, I'm not really sure what the point would be. I think you've explained your viewpoint very well.

No problem.

Hard to say, since I don't know what you mean by "genetic adaptation".


Again, it's very difficult to say without a specific example of what you're talking about.

You can always google it.

Apparently not.

In the experiment I conducted and described to you, how do you think the antibiotic resistance arose?

I explained that already.

You said "All cells carry genes. They all have different purposes.... by design." What do you mean by "design"?

The body plan of all living things is in its "blueprint" for life - the genetic code in DNA, That's why I don't have an arm where my eye is, and the other where my foot is, like what happens when scientists mess around with the Hox genes.
I believe that's by design. That information is there because an intelligence drew up the 'blueprints' on how each creature was to be. That's why we have sex, and organs for reproduction. That's why the bees and flowers have such a unique relationship... a necessary one. etc. etc.
Hope you understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oldy moldy news and just revels the obvious, there is a human element in the peer review process that over time weeds out the bad ones. The studies that are comprehensive on this subject shows that the reliability of peer review varies by discipline, and this article does not address these differences. Social sciences, and medical statistical research,and those funded by industry are the worst, and the research on the basic sciences of Chemistry, physics, and Biology have the best record, but nonetheless poor research is sometimes published, but the repetition of research, and later scrutiny corrects science over time.

The bottomline is the advancement of knowledge is a long term self correcting process that eventually weeds out the bad apples. Fortunately the absolutely phony work by those scientists associated with the Discovery Institute on Intelligent Design can't even pass the hurdles of peer review of any accepted scientific journals on the subject for obvious reasons.,

Evidently not so weeding out with peer reviews, according to those investigating the subject. This discussion of the problems with peer review wasn't all that long ago. 2018 to be exact. Just about a year ago. Entitled "The Mess That is Peer Review, and What Should be Done"
Quoting from the article, I suggest you read the entire article.

"One pretty significant problem with peer review is that it may be prone to bias from the reviewers. Not only are women greatly underrepresented in the peer review process, but reviewers are much more likely to have a preference to work done by those that are the same gender as themselves."

Just imagine!! Horrible! Can you imagine that reviewers are much more likely to have a preference to work done by those of the same gender...Imagine that.
From Nov 27, 2018 (not too long ago)
The Mess That Is Peer Review, and What Should Be Done About it
https://www.biospace.com › article › the-mess-that-is-peer-review-and-what-

 

[YoursTrue]

@shunyadragon -- here's a little more about the unreliability and bias of peer review:
Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century
(From npr.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

@shunyadragon -- here's a little more about the unreliability and bias of peer review:
Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century
(From npr.)

I don't think that you read that. Let me give you a quick synopsis of the problems it discusses. First peer review takes too long. Often 9 months or so. Second it cannot be seen by the public. One has to subscribe to very expensive journals to see the articles. Sometimes even years old articles are still hidden behind a paywall. Third, and this applied to medical peer review more than anything else, experiments are often not set up properly and by the time it is peer reviewed it is too late. No real problem with peer review itself since as has been already pointed out errors do get corrected in later articles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidently not so weeding out with peer reviews, according to those investigating the subject. This discussion of the problems with peer review wasn't all that long ago. 2018 to be exact. Just about a year ago. Entitled "The Mess That is Peer Review, and What Should be Done"
Quoting from the article, I suggest you read the entire article.

"One pretty significant problem with peer review is that it may be prone to bias from the reviewers. Not only are women greatly underrepresented in the peer review process, but reviewers are much more likely to have a preference to work done by those that are the same gender as themselves."

Just imagine!! Horrible! Can you imagine that reviewers are much more likely to have a preference to work done by those of the same gender...Imagine that.
From Nov 27, 2018 (not too long ago)
The Mess That Is Peer Review, and What Should Be Done About it
https://www.biospace.com › article › the-mess-that-is-peer-review-and-what-

You can read the answers to the previous article. Peer review is not perfect but it is better than anything else out there. And scientists are working on improving it. It still does give us a constant advance in knowledge.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you conveniently miss the "God's only begotten son" part? How is Jesus the only begotten son if God also had sons who came to earth to mate with humans?

I would like to discuss this with you a bit further, if possible. So here's how Jesus is called the only-begotten son of God even though God is said to have other sons.
John described Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God in several places. (While there is a discussion of translations, I'll use those that use the words 'only begotten' right now.)

John 1:14 says, And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as only the man. Because before that he was with God.
John 17:5 "And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed."
1 John 4:9 also shows that he is spoken of as the only-begotten Son before he left his heavenly abode. Notice what it says: "By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him."
So then we might ask, how is it that God had other sons, if Jesus is the "only-begotten"? We can look other scriptures demonstrating how that is if you would like.

 

[nPeace]

Peer reviews published research is objective verifiable evidence,

Peer reviews published research is objective verifiable evidence of what please?
Please provide a reliable source to confirm your assertion.

I had no problem with what you selectively cited, but it is an incomplete, based on your religious agenda.and gave an explanation

What do you mean by "but it is an incomplete, based on your religious agenda.and gave an explanation"?
I don't understand. Can you please explain? Thanks.

No it is not, because it is selectively couched in an ID religious agenda which =you confirmed in your previous post. 99% of all scientists in the fields of science associated with evolution except the lineage of fish to amphibians as cited. The rest are associated with the Discovery Institute and have not published their claims in peer reviewed literature.

Uh. My previous post? Which post is that?
Where did I "confirmed in [my] previous post. 99% of all scientists in the fields of science associated with evolution except the lineage of fish to amphibians as cited"?

Also is this another fallacy you are committing?
What does a consensus have to do with the truth?
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

I said this before. I really have no problem with persons choosing this system of belief.
What I have a problem with, is persons denying that its adherents do not have beliefs.
It's clear to me,that the only thing missing from such a system, is

Spoiler: the garb

You already have your "gospel" - what you believe, and you already "preach" it, because you advocate it as "the true gospel", and want the world to follow it. Those who don't are considered "heretics". You don't prove your beliefs, but it's accepted.
That's why I said, you apparently have two religions.
In my opinion, that's entirely okay. Every person has freedom of choice.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evidently not so weeding out with peer reviews, according to those investigating the subject. This discussion of the problems with peer review wasn't all that long ago. 2018 to be exact. Just about a year ago. Entitled "The Mess That is Peer Review, and What Should be Done"
Quoting from the article, I suggest you read the entire article.

"One pretty significant problem with peer review is that it may be prone to bias from the reviewers. Not only are women greatly underrepresented in the peer review process, but reviewers are much more likely to have a preference to work done by those that are the same gender as themselves."

Just imagine!! Horrible! Can you imagine that reviewers are much more likely to have a preference to work done
.,by those of the same gender...Imagine that.
From Nov 27, 2018 (not too long ago)
The Mess That Is Peer Review, and What Should Be Done About it
https://www.biospace.com › article › the-mess-that-is-peer-review-and-what-

Oldy moldy news and just revels the obvious, there is a human element in the peer review process that over time weeds out the bad ones. The studies that are comprehensive on this subject shows that the reliability of peer review varies by discipline, and this article does not address these differences. Social sciences, and medical statistical research,and those funded by industry are the worst, and the research on the basic sciences of Chemistry, physics, and Biology have the best record, but nonetheless poor research is sometimes published, but the repetition of research, and later scrutiny corrects science over time.

The bottomline is the advancement of knowledge is a long term self correcting process that eventually weeds out the bad apples. Fortunately the absolutely phony work by those scientists associated with the Discovery Institute on Intelligent Design can't even pass the hurdles of peer review of any accepted scientific journals on the subject for obvious reasons

Airplanes fly, computers work, and science and technology still advances regardless of the human problems and issues.

Still waiting for a coherent response not motivated by an anti-science religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon -- here's a little more about the unreliability and bias of peer review:
Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century
(From npr.)

I clearly acknowledge the failable human problems in science, and this has been covered in threads before.

Oldy moldy news and just revels the obvious, there is a human element in the peer review process that over time weeds out the bad ones. The studies that are comprehensive on this subject shows that the reliability of peer review varies by discipline, and this article does not address these differences. Social sciences, and medical statistical research,and those funded by industry are the worst, and the research on the basic sciences of Chemistry, physics, and Biology have the best record, but nonetheless poor research is sometimes published, but the repetition of research, and later scrutiny corrects science over time.

The bottomline is the advancement of knowledge is a long term self correcting process that eventually weeds out the bad apples. Fortunately the absolutely phony work by those scientists associated with the Discovery Institute on Intelligent Design can't even pass the hurdles of peer review of any accepted scientific journals on the subject for obvious reasons. Can you provide the breakdown of failure of peer review in the different disciplines of science?

Airplanes fly, computers work, and science and technology still advances regardless of the human problems and issues. Contrast the 100% failure rate of fundamentalist Christians terrible attempt at phony science, and the 30% success rate over time with science.

Still waiting for a coherent response not motivated by an anti-science religious agenda.

 

[nPeace]

Oldy moldy news and just revels the obvious, there is a human element in the peer review process that over time weeds out the bad ones. The studies that are comprehensive on this subject shows that the reliability of peer review varies by discipline, and this article does not address these differences. Social sciences, and medical statistical research,and those funded by industry are the worst, and the research on the basic sciences of Chemistry, physics, and Biology have the best record, but nonetheless poor research is sometimes published, but the repetition of research, and later scrutiny corrects science over time.

The bottomline is the advancement of knowledge is a long term self correcting process that eventually weeds out the bad apples. Fortunately the absolutely phony work by those scientists associated with the Discovery Institute on Intelligent Design can't even pass the hurdles of peer review of any accepted scientific journals on the subject for obvious reasons

Didn't you say that before? Why repeat yourself? Sometimes it seems to me, you just respond to post because you are not really interested in them, but focused on another. Is that the case?

I think the point is, you cannot refer to something with current problems as something reliable, because you are optimistic about those problems going away in the future.
That seems like a landlord saying, "My building is the best in the community. I know the roof is falling in, and the wall seem on the verge of collapse, and the taps are leaking, and.... but in the future those problems will be corrected."

 

[nPeace]

@shunyadragon Oh. I see you edited your post. Interesting.
So let's hand wave, and create a distraction. That's seems to be your MO, shunyadragon.
There is no anti-science religious agenda here... and we have been waiting for you to prove that.
Still waiting.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Didn't you say that before? Why repeat yourself? Sometimes it seems to me, you just respond to post because you are not really interested in them, but focused on another. Is that the case?

I think the point is, you cannot refer to something with current problems as something reliable, because you are optimistic about those problems going away in the future.
That seems like a landlord saying, "My building is the best in the community. I know the roof is falling in, and the wall seem on the verge of collapse, and the taps are leaking, and.... but in the future those problems will be corrected."

As Shunya said, airplanes fly, computers work. This very post you made is a testament to the reliability of science.

Something being imperfect doesn't mean it isn't reliable. I'm sure your front door occasionally breaks, but that doesn't mean that when you open your front door it is reasonable to expect it to instantly fly of its hinges. No - you expect it to work because it has demonstrated reliability over and over and over again, and the number of times it works makes the number of times it doesn't appear completely insignificant. In the exact same way, science is demonstrably and irrefutably reliable.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon Oh. I see you edited your post. Interesting.
So let's hand wave, and create a distraction. That's seems to be your MO, shunyadragon.
There is no anti-science religious agenda here... and we have been waiting for you to prove that.
Still waiting.

NO wave nor distraction, just the facts. The problem remains your view that evolution is Satanic

 

[nPeace]

As Shunya said, airplanes fly, computers work. This very post you made is a testament to the reliability of science.

Something being imperfect doesn't mean it isn't reliable. I'm sure your front door occasionally breaks, but that doesn't mean that when you open your front door it is reasonable to expect it to instantly fly of its hinges. No - you expect it to work because it has demonstrated reliability over and over and over again, and the number of times it works makes the number of times it doesn't appear completely insignificant. In the exact same way, science is demonstrably and irrefutably reliable.

No ImmortalFlame. Again you are wrong. My front door does not occasionally break, and this "sure" thing is the crux of the matter. Lives have been lost because people were so sure, despite knowing of problems. Just look at the Titanic, as only one of thousands of examples.

However, instead of being so sure of ourselves, as I will admit to you, I am no expert on peer review. So let's ask the experts, by considering the articles @YoursTrue posted.

The Mess That Is Peer Review, and What Should Be Done About It
...despite the fact that it is now the de facto method of evaluation for scientific research, it does have its fair share of problems, as well as quite a few critics who believe it needs to be changed or even thrown out altogether.

...since the editor-in-chief had the final, and often only, say on the matter, there was considerably less scrutiny placed on any research that was being submitted. This meant that it was easier for flawed research to be accepted to scientific journals for publication.

There have been quite a few issues with people committing peer review fraud over the years, and this is far from the only problem with peer review. In fact, there are numerous flaws, and as such, peer review has garnered a lot of criticism.

Interestingly enough, peer review itself hasn’t received much testing as to its efficacy, and so those that adhere to it do so out of the belief that it works as it should rather than any sort of empirical evidence thereof.

One pretty significant problem with peer review is that it may be prone to bias from the reviewers.

That doesn't sound to me like a few screws needing to be replaced, or a board needing to be replaced. That sounds like I need a new house, or overhaul.
...and that's only one article. I didn't look at the others,
Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century
...but found a few on my own.

Did you notice the surety of its adherents, despite the problems.
Sounds like the ones who knew of the problems with the Titanic. I wouldn't want to fly with a pilot like that. Would you?

 

[nPeace]

NO wave nor distraction, just the facts. The problem remains your view that evolution is Satanic

More distraction. You seem good at strawman.
I'm waiting for you to respond to my post... the one where you made all those allegations. Or are you trying to sneak off and think I won't notice?
I'll wait.

 

[shunyadragon]

More distraction. You seem good at strawman.
I'm waiting for you to respond to my post... the one where you made all those allegations. Or are you trying to sneak off and think I won't notice?
I'll wait.

No, sneaking off, just making up front and clear your anti-science religious agenda, which governs all your posts.

You can't sneak off without everyone noticing that you consider evolution Satanic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No ImmortalFlame. Again you are wrong. My front door does not occasionally break, and this "sure" thing is the crux of the matter.

Seriously?

Are you going to suggest your front door (or, if it helps, any door in your property) is uniquely infallible and not subject to basic, physical laws?

Lives have been lost because people were so sure, despite
knowing of problems. Just look at the Titanic, as only one of thousands of examples.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with something being reliable. If I drive a car one million times and the car breaks down once, that car demonstrated reliability - even if the one time it broke resulted in dire consequences. To ignore this and simply focus on the odd failure misses the point and distorts reality.

Again, right now you are using a computer because it reliably uses electrical signals to send messages over the internet. You are demonstrating the reliability of science while claiming it is unreliable.

However, instead of being so sure of ourselves, as I will admit to you, I am no expert on peer review. So let's ask the experts, by considering the articles @YoursTrue posted.

The Mess That Is Peer Review, and What Should Be Done About It
...despite the fact that it is now the de facto method of evaluation for scientific research, it does have its fair share of problems, as well as quite a few critics who believe it needs to be changed or even thrown out altogether.

...since the editor-in-chief had the final, and often only, say on the matter, there was considerably less scrutiny placed on any research that was being submitted. This meant that it was easier for flawed research to be accepted to scientific journals for publication.

There have been quite a few issues with people committing peer review fraud over the years, and this is far from the only problem with peer review. In fact, there are numerous flaws, and as such, peer review has garnered a lot of criticism.

Interestingly enough, peer review itself hasn’t received much testing as to its efficacy, and so those that adhere to it do so out of the belief that it works as it should rather than any sort of empirical evidence thereof.

One pretty significant problem with peer review is that it may be prone to bias from the reviewers.

That doesn't sound to me like a few screws needing to be replaced, or a board needing to be replaced. That sounds like I need a new house, or overhaul.

You can search for whatever quotes you want. Doesn't change the simple fact that science is a reliable process that produces reliable results. Finding the odd person who believe that peer review is an imperfect process doesn't negate that. Please stop selectively quoting random people to support your argument.

As someone who likes to evoke fallacies, you shouldn't be evoking the argument from authority.

...and that's only one article.

Indeed. So why should I or anyone else care?

I didn't look at the others,
Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century
...but found a few on my own.

You mean, your article which shows that scientists work to acknowledge the shortfalls in specific methodologies and then work to improve on them?

What is it that you're trying to prove again?

Did you notice the surety of its adherents, despite the problems.
Sounds like the ones who knew of the problems with the Titanic. I wouldn't want to fly with a pilot like that. Would you?

You're doing it now. You've been doing it your whole life.

Your trust science every time you use your computer. You put your faith (and your life) in the hands of scientists and the scientific method every day, because it proves itself reliable.

Name one methodology that is demonstrably more reliable than science.

 

[nPeace]

Oh, @ImmortalFlame did you notice how the article contradicted your claim?
Interestingly enough, peer review itself hasn’t received much testing as to its efficacy, and so those that adhere to it do so out of the belief that it works as it should rather than any sort of empirical evidence thereof.

That's why it's good to have a reliable source, because people on these forum constantly make statements as though they are true, and then sit back smug.
When asked for proof of their claim, they repeat their assertion, as though they have authority to.

So, no. It is simply your belief, and that's subjective to any nut. Agreed?

 

[nPeace]

No, sneaking off, just making up front and clear your anti-science religious agenda, which governs all your posts.

You can't sneak off without everyone noticing that you consider evolution Satanic.

Okay. That's covered. Now get on with it please. I'm waiting.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh, @ImmortalFlame did you notice how the article contradicted your claim?
Interestingly enough, peer review itself hasn’t received much testing as to its efficacy, and so those that adhere to it do so out of the belief that it works as it should rather than any sort of empirical evidence thereof.

And what claim of mine does that contradict, exactly? Where have I ever claimed anything specifically reliable about peer review?

That's why it's good to have a reliable source, because people on these forum constantly make statements as though they are true, and then sit back smug.

Science is a reliable source. It's demonstrably the most reliable source of information and facts in the world.

Name one more reliable, please.

When asked for proof of their claim, they repeat their assertion, as though they have authority to.

I haven't. I've made a very clear argument which you have yet to address, instead you go off on tangents about peer review and using arguments from authority.

Again, YOU ARE USING A COMPUTER RIGHT NOW. You are single-handedly demonstrating the reliability of science.

If science is not reliable, then why are you using a computer to communicate right now?

So, no. It is simply your belief, and that's subjective to any nut. Agreed?

No, because you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, you're demonstrating that you are wrong by claiming that you are right through a device developed by the scientific method.