A joke, apparently not very funny...

However, proof does not equate to truth. "Proof" is only the conclusion based on evidence and its validity is in the eye of the beholder (a problem juries face daily). Proof is only proof to those who accept it as such.

i have two questions:

*what is edward current smoking?

*does he have any more of that?...i want some.

Wait a minute.. so.. what you're saying is.. with an overwhelming body of evidence all pointing to one single conclusion, that reason cannot dictate that the truth behind the matter must be that which said body of evidence points out?

See.. you are defining "truth" as: an ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: (ie, the basic truths of life.) What this concept is defining "truth" as, is: conformity with fact or reality; verity: (the truth of a statement), or: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: (mathematical truths).

If "proof" does not equate to "truth", then humanity has no need of reason, as anything that we perceive would be a falsity.


Gandalf

That's correct, but I think it doesn't matter if people who don't know much about a subject don't accept a proof because it contradicts their holy book or their limited human intuition. However, if that proof is accepted by the huge majority of the science community: people who are smart enough, know the field, and usually are not influenced by holy books then I tend to take it as the best as we can come close to the "truth" -- that's not a guarantee that's that is the truth but is the best we can do it, whenever there is new evidence it is incorporated into the body of knowledge.

Saying that's not the Truth it's misleading because nobody claimed it to be the Truth, it's just the closest we can get to the truth of the matter. If you have any better information that approximate the truth better then you are welcome to provide it.

However, if somebody is motivated by other interests than scientific reasons and uses your reasoning to claim "this is not the truth, it's only a theory" makes this whole issue highly misleading. There are many things in life that we accept as truth although they are "only" theories: for example a criminal is caught on the basis of fingerprints, the fact that people have different fingerprints is only "a theory" it's not the truth until all the people are fingerprinted, however we accept that as a truth (best approximation of truth we can get) and no criminal will get out of jail on the claim that "is only a theory" (it's best evidence we have, if there's a better one we'll consider it). But maybe this is not the best example.

Anyway a prof can be judged from two perspectives:
1. is it the best proof we have?
2. is it enough to proof something (beyond reasonable doubts)

I don't think that anyone can fight against Theory of Evolution on the first ground because they would have to bring a better proof and till now nobody did.

The issue that remains is if that's enough proof. Now, there's a small number of people who are religious motivated who claim that's not enough proof that some things cannot be explained by the aforementioned theory (most of the claims have already been debunked). However human knowledge is limited, there are always going to be gaps and "missing links", in evolution terms if you find a "missing link" creationists will find two new "missing links" (let me represent that graphically if you don't see what I mean: 1 - 2 becomes 1 - 1.5 - 2, now there's a gap between 1 and 1.5 and another one between 1.5 and 2, and so on). The issue here is not inventing stuff to explain the normal gaps, God is an invented thing that "solves" those gaps, but is a bigger gap in itself. In science you can't explain something unknown with a bigger unknown -- this is where science and religions part ways and this is the biggest contradiction between religions who purport to provide accurate information and science.

Otherwise, it all comes down to Truthiness