Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[SkepticThinker]

Your math needs work.

Could you respond with something that makes sense?
Thanks.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Could you respond with something that makes sense?
Thanks.

I'm still waiting for you to make sense so there's something worth responding to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm still waiting for you to make sense so there's something worth responding to.

Sure thing bud.

So my math needs work. What do you mean by that? Do you think 1972 took place during this century?
Are you not aware that a lot has been discovered in the scientific world since 1972?

Do explain. Oh and I love the condescension when it's coming from a person who is speaking on something they know absolutely nothing about. It's simply amazing.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Sure thing bud.

So my math needs work. What do you mean by that? Do you think 1972 took place during this century?
Are you not aware that a lot has been discovered in the scientific world since 1972?

Do explain. Oh and I love the condescension when it's coming from a person who is speaking on something they know absolutely nothing about. It's simply amazing.

It's not important to look at what actually took place when certain fossils were discovered?

This is the study of the past. Going into the past and reviewing the actual accuracy of the claims is pretty important.

What has happened since then is the discovery that life is much more complex than originally thought, which points to creation.

And I find it funny that all these so called experts on evolution have no knowledge of the events surrounding the discoveries. It's almost as if they want me to think it's all rock solid certain proof.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not important to look at what actually took place when certain fossils were discovered?
This is the study of the past. Going into the past and reviewing the actual accuracy of the claims is pretty important.

What's more important is how they are viewed now, after they've been studied and analyzed by various multiple independent groups of scientists. What someone thought 50 years ago isn't all that pertinent to the discussion of where such things stand now.

If we did it the way you're doing it, we'd be steeped in outdated information. Hey wait, that explains a few things here ...

What has happened since then is the discovery that life is much more complex than originally thought, which points to creation.

You keep saying that but you just can't seem to get around to demonstrating it.

About 10 pages back or so, I pointed out to you that simplicity is actually the hallmark of design, not complexity. I don't recall your response, if there was one.

And I find it funny that all these so called experts and evolution have no knowledge of the events surrounding the discoveries. It's almost as if they want me to think it's all rock solid certain proof.

No, they're actually experts in their field of study, your attempt to belittle and demonize them, aside.

Nobody in science would ever tell you they have "rock solid certain proof" of anything. As several posters have already explained to you. I wonder why you guys keep repeating claims that have been already been addressed over and over again? Probably because that's all you've got.

 

[Justanatheist]

What has happened since then is the discovery that life is much more complex than originally thought, which points to creation.

Why does complexity point to creation, the very best engineers know to keep it simple as possible.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, they're actually experts in their field of study, your attempt to belittle and demonize them, aside.

But they don't know the history of the fossil discoveries? Ok then.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why does complexity point to creation, the very best engineers know to keep it simple as possible.

But chance can't create complex organisms.
I don't imagine a mechanism composed of millions of components evolved by itself.

 

[ratiocinator]

But chance can't create complex organisms.

Creationist 'misunderstanding' #1. Nobody suggested that it can.

I don't imagine a mechanism composed of millions of components evolved by itself.

What you imagine couldn't be less relevant. Doubly so as you keep showing how little you know about the subject.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't imagine a mechanism composed of millions of components evolved by itself.

So what? Some people "don't imagine" that the earth is spherical and orbits the sun. What makes your incredulity any different than theirs?

 

[Justanatheist]

But chance can't create complex organisms.
I don't imagine a mechanism composed of millions of components evolved by itself.

So do you acknowledge that designers keep things as simple as they can?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Smart Alec comments don't negate the truth. We demand solid evidence in every other kind of science. I guess I'm supposed to make an exception for the ToE?

You've used them profusely. I thought you were a connoisseur.

No. No pass for the theory. But discovering that some fossils were mixed up or whatever, is not evidence that the theory is refuted. No matter how much creationists crow that it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Smart Alec comments don't negate the truth. We demand solid evidence in every other kind of science. I guess I'm supposed to make an exception for the ToE?

Sarcastic and satirical. Not smart aleck. Brilliantly funny too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What was your point?

Who knows. But please let me know if you ever determine it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep. Some of these talking points were around during the Scopes trial, about 100 years ago! Maybe whenever a new creationist comes here we should first send them this link: An Index to Creationist Claims (talkorigins.org)

Then we say, "This is from 2006, so if any of the arguments you plan on making are in that index, they're old, stale, and have been done to death, and we're not going to bother with them. So you'll need to come up with something new if you want folks here to take you at all seriously."

On the other hand, if they did not use those arguments, they would have no arguments at all. Creationism is like modern Hollywood. Can't come up with something new, so they re-invent 70's television.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your math needs work.

He wants to know if there is any more recent information about these alleged controversies. Perhaps they have all been settled.

Since you are making yourself the expert in these things, it is a reasonable expectation that you might have the latest and greatest information and not .22's for your .50 cal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The internet isn't the holy grail. It doesn't contain all truth. In fact most internet searches give you a certain slant on the information you are seeking.

No one expects the Holy Grail.

I'm sorry, that is the Spanish Inquisition that no one expects.

I agree with you on this though. Not everything found on the internet is truthful. Noting that the link was to a page and not a search engine, I am wondering about the significance of your comment regarding searches and what that means regarding the content of that page linked. I think you are trying to imply it is not truth without saying it is not truth. You definitely did not say it was not truth. That you didn't come right out and say that is interesting too. I wonder why you chose to respond as you did.

On the subject of bias encountered with search engines, do you think that you are or are not subject to it as well?

Do you consider what you find to be the truth and that what others find not to be the truth and base that on search engine bias? How are you connecting the two?

Do you consider what you personally find is truth, because what you find is fact or because it supports your own bias?

Trying to eliminate bias is built into science and is an ongoing and continual effort.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm still waiting for you to make sense so there's something worth responding to.

Still waiting for you to respond . . .

Your making some odd statements concerning the fossils and their relationships. What is your educational background in Paleontology, comparative paleo comparative anatomy, geology and genetics?

They were not homo (the group homo sapiens belong to) like bones. The Morphology of the homo group is distinctly different from the australopithecus group. The conclusions of the research on the Taung child fossils support this conclusion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep. Some of these talking points were around during the Scopes trial, about 100 years ago! Maybe whenever a new creationist comes here we should first send them this link: An Index to Creationist Claims (talkorigins.org)

Then we say, "This is from 2006, so if any of the arguments you plan on making are in that index, they're old, stale, and have been done to death, and we're not going to bother with them. So you'll need to come up with something new if you want folks here to take you at all seriously."

I include in this the fact that many of my questions to creationists never seem to get answered. At best, if there is a response, it is some point, often trivial or diverting that is focused on instead. But questions that should be easily answerable, given the claims, are usually ignored.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes people of faith accept that we take the Biblical accounts on faith. Science isn't supposed to be by faith or so I'm told over and over and over again.
So if there's no proof, why would we accept it?

I have no proof that you exist. All I see is a post on an internet site. You could be a computer virus or a bot.

However, I accept that you are a person based on some evidence. I could be wrong, but it is the best information I have to make the decision.

Do you think I am a rabbit? Or do you think I am a person? If the latter, why?