Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[shunyadragon]

Scientific methodology is incorporated of people. Scientific methodology has not proved, evidenced, demonstrated, that all living things came about by evolution.

Again, your ignorance of science is appalling. Your making statements based on a religious agenda,and not science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am going to ask you the same question I asked shunyadragon. Rephrasing it a bit, however. Are beetles in the same species as humans?

No.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am going to ask you the same question I asked shunyadragon. Rephrasing it a bit, however. Are beetles in the same species as humans?

I am not even clear on how someone with your claimed education would even consider this a question worth asking. Both humans and beetles are animals, but they are not even in the same phylum. Beetles are an order in the class Insecta and humans are a species of ape in the class Mammalia. Beetles are invertebrates in the phylum Arthropoda and humans are in the phylum Chordata.

Twist this however you see fit and don't forget to pretend you weren't provided with this information as you move forward.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Explain.

Good luck. I have asked several times and gotten nothing in response.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting - can you provide your source for this? I would like to read it myself.

He did post some titles, but I have no idea if what he claims was in any of those.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is self correcting? Let's examine that a bit. As Dan touched on, would you say science is a person?

That is some fine twisting of what I posted.

Dan touched on nothing of the sort. I asked you if you thought science was a person. You never responded.

Would you say that you are at the pinnacle of knowledge for a creationist?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Based on your replies, like clouds, science never makes a mistake. Clouds are not composed of persons who do make mistakes. Maybe you think science is like that.

Those are your words and were not found in anything I posted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're supposed to be the expert. You answer.

I am asking you? Why would you need an expert to answer a question like that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you are a member of a species. A specific species. Beetles are not members of your species.

I loved the Beatles when I was a kid. But I much prefer the Who and the Kinks.

 

[metis]

Science is self correcting? Let's examine that a bit. As Dan touched on, would you say science is a person?

No, "science" is a huge consortium of educated people over centuries that actually study, observe, then use the "scientific method" to draw objective conclusions. Can we say the same about religion? OK, let's give that a go and see:
Show us objectively-derived evidence that there aren't many gods. Good luck.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science is self correcting? Let's examine that a bit. As Dan touched on, would you say science is a person?

Of course not.

Science is a tool, a method, a process. And a useful one at that.

 

[shunyadragon]

And so? This proves,,,oops,,,no, demonstrates...exemplifies...?...insinuates...what? That it is evidence of evolution?

Yes, science never proves anything, because with new objective verifiable evidence the knowledge of science changes, and the support for evolution becomes more conclusive over time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Scientific methodology is incorporated of people. Scientific methodology has not proved, evidenced, demonstrated, that all living things came about by evolution.

It has. In fact, they have more evidence for that then they do for the germ theory of disease or gravity.

Evolution is a fact of life.

You just refuse to accept it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Or at least demonstrate that he had read any of those instead of just sort of copy-pasting them from some creationist source. Like provide a quote or an explanation instead of the sort of 'look ma I got a prize at the arcade look ma look ma! ' meandering tripe that WAS provided.

Bingo!

 

[YoursTrue]

It has. In fact, they have more evidence for that then they do for the germ theory of disease or gravity.

Evolution is a fact of life.

You just refuse to accept it.

I'm thinking you refuse to accept logical and plain reasoning. It (the theory of living matter said to come about by evolution) just doesn't have a legitimate backup for it. I'm not talking about creation or anything else. Evolution itself, as I look at the answers given, and the theory, just is not working by substantial findings. And by that I mean the gaps biologically are much more than reality would uphold for the theory. You can say otherwise, but the facts reveal there is no substance to decide something evolved in terms of species except conjecture using whatever tests pushing in with the theory are used. But whatever the tests do show (such as difference of dna or similarity of structure) does not prove, show, or demonstrate that these objects evolved as in the Darwinian theory. Thanks anyway. You can keep telling me they do, and frankly, it's not there.

 

[YoursTrue]

Bingo!

I wonder what it is you think I copied and pasted from heavens forbid a "creationist" source. I've asked questions from your apparently "non-creationist" sources and I can only imagine when you can't answer, call me uneducated, you tell me to do more research. lol. (And don't know the answer and will parrot answers as IF they are the reason you believe in the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, science never proves anything, because with new objective verifiable evidence the knowledge of science changes, and the support for evolution becomes more conclusive over time.

So you say. But nothing really proves or conclusively supports evolution at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you say. But nothing really proves or conclusively supports evolution at all.

Based on what education, work experience, scientific references in the science related to evolution support your claim? All you have mentioned here is a possible college level biology course you did well in. Not much of anything that would be meaningful, and you have not provided any scientific arguments to support your religious based assertions.

Still waiting. . .

 

[shunyadragon]

I wonder what it is you think I copied and pasted from heavens forbid a "creationist" source. I've asked questions from your apparently "non-creationist" sources and I can only imagine when you can't answer, call me uneducated, you tell me to do more research. lol. (And don't know the answer and will parrot answers as IF they are the reason you believe in the theory.

Brief snipits of questions are not meaningful to the discussion. We need specific scientific references to support your assertions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Brief snipits of questions are not meaningful to the discussion. We need specific scientific references to support your assertions.

You may use any scientific reference basically to support my assertion. However, when I next come across some such, I'll reference it. Same with you. Show how your quotes from scientists support what is deemed as the reality of evolution.