Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[YoursTrue]

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.

Lol ..there is no law of evolution. There is law that life can be intermingled with flesh. I can see fossils. These are not evidence of a process called evolution. They are proof that something was alive. They are not proof of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I realize we may not come to an agreement of any sort on this. But, as I've said, the discussion has been interesting and helpful. While there are obviously fossils, there is no observable law of evolution.

 

[metis]

Evolution is not a law.

False, as we well know and science has well established the very simple fact that life forms evolve. The "variations" of the covid virus we currently see is just one recent example of this.

Again, maybe google "speciation", and let me do just that from one source: Speciation - Wikipedia

Now, if you slip back into your "kinds" argument, then you lose as has been pointed out. Little changes compounded lead to bigger changes, and that should stand to just plain old common sense. "Evolution" is a process that has overwhelming evidence for it including common sense, thus any supposed religious position that says otherwise must be bogus, thus in defiance of the Truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

I realize we may not come to an agreement of any sort on this. But, as I've said, the discussion has been interesting and helpful. While there are obviously fossils, there is no observable law of evolution.

Still waiting . . .

You dishonestly misrepresented the research cited in the article and I documented this.

I can assume and explanation is not forthcoming.

 

[tas8831]

I'm reading that there were problems associated with categorizing the "Taung child" fossil in terms of its evolutionary place.

If so, then it actually supports the notion of evolution, since if things were 'created' independently to be individual 'kinds', then it stands to reason that there should be no such difficulties.

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps someone could explain the strange tendency of the evolution crowd to deny there's any controversy among scientists about these types of findings?

Perhaps someone could explain the strange tendency of the anti-evolution crowd to magnify and in effect 'redefine' any controversy among scientists about these types of findings into some kind of major issue?

 

[tas8831]

Seems the scientists have no problem "stretching" when it comes to ideas they (most of them) will accept, based on the article you linked..

Like when you stretched credibility to "argue" against molecular phylogenetics by copy-pasting the definitions of words like 'diagram' to dismiss scientific analyses that you neither understood nor could counter with anything of merit?

 

[tas8831]

Nope, I entered the discussion because of two things: the first is to see why a person really believes that life came about by magic, I mean evolution.

The projection and lack of self-awareness is a sight to behold.

 

[tas8831]

That's right. The hypothesis keeps growing and growing, and new branches keep sprouting. Nothing makes for more fun than one big idea.

@YoursTrue when one is happy with a chain that's linked by...

....they are free to wear it.
Doesn't matter that you see it. They never will.
However, trying to figure out why they don't, isn't necessarily a bad thing. So I see your angle of approach.
You go girl.

This guy... never anything of merit or substance...

 

[tas8831]

Regarding when Adam & Eve were created: I've been reading the RF posts, there was is much controversy among... creationists.


Do you have a point to make?

Then there is the even bigger controversy between creationists regarding the age/length of the creation week of the earth. That seems to be a far greater and damning controversy then where, exactly, one fossils skull fits on the 'evolutionary tree'.

 

[tas8831]

I don't know of any creationists who deny that controversy exists.
It's not a doctrinal issue.

Oh, well, no biggie then.

Good thing the Taung child's exact attributes are not doctrinal.

 

[tas8831]

I want to play the guitar like Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page. But I don't want to learn or practice or challenge myself or work. I just want all that skill, knowledge and experience dumped right in my lap without any effort.

And when that fail, you can just record part of a Jeff Beck solo, remove any information about where you got it from, and present it as your own, implying jhow great a string-bender you are. Seems to work for a certain group of people.... or so they believe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Perhaps someone could explain the strange tendency of the anti-evolution crowd to magnify and in effect 'redefine' any controversy among scientists about these types of findings into some kind of major issue?

It's a pretty major issue when some scientists don't find the evidence for Lucy to be conclusive for example. Some agreed that it's actually a mix of different species bones.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Then there is the even bigger controversy between creationists regarding the age/length of the creation week of the earth. That seems to be a far greater and damning controversy then where, exactly, one fossils skull fits on the 'evolutionary tree'.

Why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps someone could explain the strange tendency of the anti-evolution crowd to magnify and in effect 'redefine' any controversy among scientists about these types of findings into some kind of major issue?

When two scientists disagree over some detail, that of course means that all theories fall apart. Especially that nasty theory of evolution. It does not matter how minor the detail might be. It just automatically destroys science and we have to start all over.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's a pretty major issue when some scientists don't find the evidence for Lucy to be conclusive for example. Some agreed that it's actually a mix of different species bones.

It would be a miracle if you ever posted anything to back up what you claim. Just cause yawl say it don't make it true bro or make it a controversy that sure be bringin' this here ole science to its knees. Didn't some good ole experts ever tell you bout usin' evidence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol ..there is no law of evolution. There is law that life can be intermingled with flesh. I can see fossils. These are not evidence of a process called evolution. They are proof that something was alive. They are not proof of evolution.

No one ever said there was a law of evolution. Wouldn't matter though. You deny anything related to the theory including that the evidence supporting it exists. Really what point is there for you to continue on?

I'll leave you to continue following the advice of Buddy Holly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I realize we may not come to an agreement of any sort on this. But, as I've said, the discussion has been interesting and helpful. While there are obviously fossils, there is no observable law of evolution.

How could anyone come to an agreement with someone so steeped in denial that they have closed their eyes and mind and refuse to look?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And when that fail, you can just record part of a Jeff Beck solo, remove any information about where you got it from, and present it as your own, implying jhow great a string-bender you are. Seems to work for a certain group of people.... or so they believe.

Or I could just tell them I am Jeff Beck and not even pretend to make an attempt to back that up with any evidence. Just say it with such conviction of certitude and hubris that it must be true just because I say it is true. Some people do that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why?

What about the controversies in Christianity that are discussed on this forum?

The Trinity. Sola scriptura. The fission of Christianity into 45,000 denominations. Questioning the Christianity of anyone that disagrees with a particular doctrine, view on science, political position, etc., etc., etc.

If we follow the logic of controversy espoused here for science, then according to that logic, Christianity is falling apart.

I do not believe that, but that is the next turn following fallacious logic that is not externally consistent.