Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[Dan From Smithville]

They will say there's no proof in science while at the same time tell you you can't argue with their evidence. I don't think they even see the contradiction.

No one has claimed that you cannot argue with evidence. It isn't that and you know it.

You do not bother to use evidence at all. Just declaration and shaming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only support is conjecture. That is what I find from your teachings and surmises.

Conjecture is opinion without information. It forms the foundation of your claims. There is evidence to support evolution. You have even made statements to that effect yourself in your zeal to deny that it happens. It is amusing to watch.

You claim that evolution happens within kinds and then claim that evolution doesn't happen, because it is all conjecture. You post about a find (evidence) and then claim there is no evidence.

Talk about a contradiction that is not seen by the people operating with it.

 

[nPeace]

Way to lead the way in demonstrating how gracefulness works and taking the high road instead of going in for one last kick and diminishing people as thoughtless parrots.

As I believe you are well aware, some animals don't learn anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I believe you are well aware, some animals don't learn anything.

I really appreciate that you post regular evidence supporting that claim. Thank you so much for helping me to understand.

 

[nPeace]

They addressed specifically the subject of the thread "Taung child" fossil?"

Yours did not.

A blind man once told a man that could see, he was seeing the time on his watch... and he believed it too.
Anyway, perhaps you have nothing better to do on threads than repeat yourself, and go on forever doing so.
Go for it... again.
I'll leave you to it, and exit... like a pigeon. Bye.

 

[nPeace]

Reading nPeace's, comment, perhaps you missed this one... ?
He addressed this: Citing deficiencies in how the Taung fossil material has been recently assessed..."
"The authors also debate the previously offered theoretical basis for this adaptation..."
And commented, "That's very interesting." Perhaps you should reread it again. So which tree or branch would you surmise and believe the Taung child came from in its path to humankind? And do you think that the human womb engenders that path from concepts through Taung child to human?

Reread? Or did you mean to say read. It's a trademark, that perhaps can't be helped.
I remember this kid next door, and hearing these words..

 

[shunyadragon]

A blind man once told a man that could see, he was seeing the time on his watch... and he believed it too.
Anyway, perhaps you have nothing better to do on threads than repeat yourself, and go on forever doing so.
Go for it... again.
I'll leave you to it, and exit... like a pigeon. Bye.

Meaningless Pfffffffft! Plop!!!!

 

[metis]

So many on the religious right use the word "kinds" as the main factor as to rejecting the ToE, but so many within this element also in the past used the word "kinds" to apply to their belief of staying within one's own "race". Coincidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

I feel very confident that you arrived at your opinion long before you ever heard of the Taung Child. Posting about evidence and then waving it away with a series of denials is not really consideration of the evidence.

Actually it doesn't matter when I arrived at my opinion. Which is that evolution of the Darwinian concept just is not true. The evidence certainly does not prove, demonstrate, or suggest evolution. As I have often stated, I did not always have that opinion. I accepted what I was taught in school about that. I no longer believe it, and the evidence of fossils does not show or demonstrate the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

So many on the religious right use the word "kinds" as the main factor as to rejecting the ToE, but so many within this element also in the past used the word "kinds" to apply to their belief of staying within one's own "race". Coincidence?

Let me put it this way, terms do not authenticate the validity or truthfulness of the theory in actuality.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me put it this way, terms do not authenticate the validity or truthfulness of the theory in actuality.

Let me put this way. No, the objective verifiable evidence verifies the validity of the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution.

Still waiting for you to respond to tha actual citations from the article and the research the article came from.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let me put this way. No, the objective verifiable evidence verifies the validity of the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution.

Still waiting for you to respond to tha actual citations from the article and the research the article came from.

Still waiting for evidence from you proving evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Still waiting for evidence from you proving evolution.

This does not address the subject of your thread. It only represents your total unbelievable ignorance of how ALL of science, and the science of evolution works.

You misrepresent and dishonestly misuse scientific references.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let me put this way. No, the objective verifiable evidence verifies the validity of the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution.

Still waiting for you to respond to tha actual citations from the article and the research the article came from.

There is no objective evidence as far as happenstance for either one. None whatsoever. That living things resemble similar shapes or forms does not mean they evolved. That there is no star formation that is in letters saying that no one made them doesn't mean no one did.

 

[YoursTrue]

This does not address the subject of your thread. It only represents your total unbelievable ignorance of how ALL of science, and the science of evolution works.

You misrepresent and dishonestly misuse scientific references.

Still waiting...

 

[YoursTrue]

This does not address the subject of your thread. It only represents your total unbelievable ignorance of how ALL of science, and the science of evolution works.

You misrepresent and dishonestly misuse scientific references.

Again, gravity is a law. How it works is theorized. Evolution is not a law. There is no substantiation to the theory except placing fossils. Rightly or wrongly. There is no proof of the theory. Only conjecture. The theory and supposed substantiation doesn't work in reality. You have done nothing to prove it does. If you can't prove it, then it's not like gravity. Evolution can't be proven. Gravity can be.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, gravity is a law. How it works is theorized. Evolution is not a law. There is no substantiation to the theory except placing fossils. Rightly or wrongly. There is no proof of the theory. Only conjecture.

Yes evolution isnot a law, but this is the only thing you have gotten right in this thread.

This does not address the subject of your thread. It only represents your total unbelievable ignorance of how ALL of science, and the science of evolution works.

You misrepresent and dishonestly misuse scientific references. Nothing above represets an honest view of the science involving gravity nor evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Still waiting...

. . . and not responding honestly to scientific references.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually it doesn't matter when I arrived at my opinion. Which is that evolution of the Darwinian concept just is not true. The evidence certainly does not prove, demonstrate, or suggest evolution. As I have often stated, I did not always have that opinion. I accepted what I was taught in school about that. I no longer believe it, and the evidence of fossils does not show or demonstrate the theory of evolution.

Good luck with that. Science is sure gonna take it real hard.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, gravity is a law. How it works is theorized. Evolution is not a law. There is no substantiation to the theory except placing fossils. Rightly or wrongly. There is no proof of the theory. Only conjecture. The theory and supposed substantiation doesn't work in reality. You have done nothing to prove it does. If you can't prove it, then it's not like gravity. Evolution can't be proven. Gravity can be.

It is clear to me that you are very wise in the ways of science.

A law in science is a description of an observed phenomenon. It does not offer an explanation of the phenomenon. There are theories that explain gravity based on the evidence. Just as there is a theory to explain the evidence of evolution.

You sound like you are raving now and I see no reason to continue discussion with you on the subject.