Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[shunyadragon]

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?

Again, again and again science does not deal with proof, but as far as evolution goes, over 150 years of fossil discoveries, research, genetics and thousands of published articles in peer reviewed journals all over the world. That is the reason evolution is accepted,

Again . . .

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.

We need a response . . .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's why some of us know that you should seek out academic sources instead of just any old thing that pops up.

I think it is better if I just pretend I am Jeff Beck rather than spend all that time learning music and practicing on the guitar. I just want to feel comfortable anyway.

 

[Jose Fly]

On the other hand, if they did not use those arguments, they would have no arguments at all.

Instantly, my mind went to....

Creationism is like modern Hollywood. Can't come up with something new, so they re-invent 70's television.

LOL....exactly!

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.

Yep. The vast majority of "debates" with creationists consists of little more than chasing them around trying to get them to answer basic questions, like "what do you mean", "what's your point", or "do you have a citation". The rest seems to be trying to explain basic concepts in science to them (what "theory" means, science doesn't deal in "proof").

But we keep at it, so there must be something about it that keeps us coming back.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Instantly, my mind went to....

I love that show. I grew up watching it. My folks met Grandpa Jones and his wife in Branson years ago. By all accounts they really hit it off. Especially my mother and Mrs. Grandpa. Apparently, they shared in common having husbands that were both going deaf.

LOL....exactly!

At least with Hollywood there is a chance that a reboot will be as entertaining as the original.

Yep. The vast majority of "debates" with creationists consists of little more than chasing them around trying to get them to answer basic questions, like "what do you mean", "what's your point", or "do you have a citation". The rest seems to be trying to explain basic concepts in science to them (what "theory" means, science doesn't deal in "proof").

But we keep at it, so there must be something about it that keeps us coming back.

I think there are a number of reasons for continuing it, but I recall something I believe @exchemist said recently. I am paraphrasing, but it was something about not letting misinformation persist without correcting it. Even if the person you are correcting refuses to see, others might.

That and some days, I just like a good scrap.

 

[Jose Fly]

I love that show. I grew up watching it. My folks met Grandpa Jones and his wife in Branson years ago. By all accounts they really hit it off. Especially my mother and Mrs. Grandpa. Apparently, they shared in common having husbands that were both going deaf.

That's so cool! I grew up with Hee Haw too. I can still sing all the regular songs (the "Gossiping wives" were my favorite).

At least with Hollywood there is a chance that a reboot will be as entertaining as the original.

Touche!

I think there are a number of reasons for continuing it, but I recall something I believe @exchemist said recently. I am paraphrasing, but it was something about not letting misinformation persist without correcting it. Even if the person you are correcting refuses to see, others might.

That and some days, I just like a good scrap.

For sure. I always wonder just how much of an impact these online debates have had. Unfortunately there's no way to really tell. But I have heard/read some good personal stories from "lurkers" where they were persuaded to side with science after watching some online debates.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's so cool! I grew up with Hee Haw too. I can still sing all the regular songs (the "Gossiping wives" were my favorite).


Touche!


For sure. I always wonder just how much of an impact these online debates have had. Unfortunately there's no way to really tell. But I have heard/read some good personal stories from "lurkers" where they were persuaded to side with science after watching some online debates.

Since it appears that most creationists develop their views about a lot of things on a belief basis, they have trouble understanding how someone can come to conclusions using evidence. Especially when those conclusions are in opposition to something they have long believed without question.

The way I see it, I spent the better part of my adult life learning about something to the point that, even early on, I recognized the evidence enough to accept it and understand the position of doing so. I would be dishonest with myself and with others not to support that recognition or to let others demand the rejection of that knowledge for no good reason.

 

[Jose Fly]

Since it appears that most creationists develop their views about a lot of things on a belief basis, they have trouble understanding how someone can come to conclusions using evidence. Especially when those conclusions are in opposition to something they have long believed without question.

The way I see it, I spent the better part of my adult life learning about something to the point that, even early on, I recognized the evidence enough to accept it and understand the position of doing so. I would be dishonest with myself and with others not to support that recognition or to let others demand the rejection of that knowledge for no good reason.

Very well put. Years ago I wrote an essay for a different forum, where I described how creationists tend to go about this whole thing in the opposite way as those of us who are scientifically oriented. The basic outline is that creationists tend to start with the conclusion and then try and find the right process and evidence to justify it, whereas science-minded folks adhere to the process, apply the evidence to it, and go with whatever conclusion it produces.

Kinda like this old cartoon....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder if I am seeing someone trying to convince themselves of something when I keep seeing repetition of claims that there is no evidence of evolution or that science uses proofs.

Like repeating there is no place like home, they will be magically transported to a comfy place where what they want to believe to be true will be true.

As if saying something, even something in defiance of the facts, will make those facts disappear.

Sort of like all those claims by anti-evolutionists that they studied the science and even accepted it at some vague, poorly defined time in the past.

I am Jeff Beck. I am Jeff Beck. I am Jeff Beck.

No. Not working. It doesn't substitute for talent, knowledge and years and years of playing. I still don't play like Jeff Beck.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very well put. Years ago I wrote an essay for a different forum, where I described how creationists tend to go about this whole thing in the opposite way as those of us who are scientifically oriented. The basic outline is that creationists tend to start with the conclusion and then try and find the right process and evidence to justify it, whereas science-minded folks adhere to the process, apply the evidence to it, and go with whatever conclusion it produces.

Kinda like this old cartoon....

That is excellent and illustrates the different paradigms so well.

I have noticed the method of forcing the facts applies to a lot of subjects.

Politics is another subject rife with such opportunity.

 

[ecco]

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?

Well, you've only been here for a month or so, so I'll give you a pass on that "proof" thing. One time.

Try to get this and remember this: Science does not do proofs. Science is about accumulating evidence.

Accepting overwhelming evidence has nothing to do with accepting something by blind faith.

There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is a spheroid that revolves around the sun. Maybe you accept the overwhelming evidence that led to that scientific consensus or maybe you believe a flat earth is at the center of the universe.

There is overwhelming evidence that humans are the result of a process of evolution as defined by ToE. Maybe you accept the overwhelming evidence that led to that scientific consensus or maybe you believe a god popped out a couple of humans 6000 years ago.

If you accept one scientific consensus but not the other, perhaps you can explain why.

 

[ecco]

You can conclude anything you want...that doesn't make it so.

See above post #250.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is excellent and illustrates the different paradigms so well.

I have noticed the method of forcing the facts applies to a lot of subjects.

Politics is another subject rife with such opportunity.

I think that's why I'm equally fascinated with conservative media. It, just like creationism, represents a way of thinking that I just don't understand, but find fascinating.

Although lately I've found myself seriously disturbed and worried about what I'm seeing from Christian conservatives these days. There is so much anger, bitterness, bigotry, racism, and hate coming from them. Just today, after I showed someone a study about employers not giving interviews to people with black sounding names on their resumes, the replies were horrid. And the irony is, it was in the context of conservatives grousing about critical race theory and saying there's no racism in America today!

I dunno man.....I see a lot of conservative Christians taking a very dark turn. I think much of it is related to Trump, and how he united a lot of disparate groups under a common cause. Growing up around conservative Christians, I never saw or heard some of the things I'm seeing and hearing today. I'm very concerned.

 

[ecco]

But chance can't create complex organisms.

Just one out of 100,000,000 sperm fertilized your mother's egg and created you. Chance created you. Don't you think you are a complex organism?

 

[ecco]

I dunno man.....I see a lot of conservative Christians taking a very dark turn. I think much of it is related to Trump, and how he united a lot of disparate groups under a common cause. Growing up around conservative Christians, I never saw or heard some of the things I'm seeing and hearing today. I'm very concerned.

Good observation and a valid concern.

 

[nPeace]

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

I don't. In the same way that you would likely not acknowledge that scientists commit fraud... or would you.
Some do. Likewise, some designers may do simple. The vast majority don't.
Simple, to one person is complicated to another.
It's often a subjective assessment, and based on one's advanced knowledge and experience.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Show me a mechanism with millions of parts that wasn't created by man. In fact if you find a simple mechanism in the woods you it's manmade. If you find a wall you know it's man made even if it's made from rock. But your DNA just pooped itself fro nothing? Ok, then.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Pretty lame actually.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Depends on the designer. And as simple as they can doesn't necasarrily mean simple.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Assuming these are even accurate distinctions. I consider them all humans.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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?

I think you are a persona.
But you could be a rabbit.
In which case I'd have to consider you food.