Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

The fact that you have no idea that it is Piltdown Man, not pitdown, shows we should not even consider your arguments. If you cannot even have the decency to attempt to understand the subject matter, than do not insult us with your attempt at an argument. This is a lie. Piltdown man was presented in 1912. Skepticism was expressed, by scientists, as early as 1915. It was fully exposed as a hoax in 1953. So you are wrong on all counts.
Here is a quick overview.Piltdown Man - WikipediaPlease look at my signatures. Why do you have to lie? Is it that your position has no validity?

As this is a forum where we discuss science, I assumed that "scientific" argument was implied. I often forget that creos and fundies manipulate language when they cannot manipulate evidence and factual data.Have you ever noticed that anything where you make the claim "God did it" you have no evidence, and that the myriad of things that people used to say god did it we actually have scientific evidence for.
Also, before you can claim god did it you need to explain which god or actually define this entity so we know what you mean by god.

Troll

This again shows that when creos have no argument they resort to manipulating words and language. Their dishonesty is shown by how they think they have a valid argument when all they do is twist, manipulate and equivocate words and terms. Equivocation is the hallmark of almost all creo arguments.

This reinforces my statement in Message 473Edited by Theodoric, : forgot my

Oh you think you manipulation of language is a victory for you. Alas, all it does is further expose that you have no argument. Nothing but a troll.

Then this thread needs to be closed. You admit you are not discussing science. If you want to continue this discussion it needs to move to the faith forums, it does not belong in the science forums, because no matter how much science is presented you will just dismiss because of your religious beliefs. In other words you are just trolling.Admin - do you not think this thread should be closed since Dredge admits all he has is a faith argument?

Before you think of suggesting a logical fallacy, you should understand the fallacy.
I suggest this site as a good primer.
Fallacies - Nizkor
This is the explanation there of appeal to authority.

quote:

---

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

​

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

---

Again you think you can win the debate by manipulating words. Have you ever noticed how different dictionaries use different words to define the same words. Would you say there is no agreement for the definition every word because all definitions are not exactly the same?Here is a good explanation about what a scientific theory is.

quote:

---

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers...
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the continental drift theory, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories have been tested and verified and are generally accepted by scientists beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

---

Hypothesis, theory, law - Google Docs#

This is a science forum. If you want to make a faith based argument you need to move this to a faith forum. We have plenty of those.BTW- your bible is not a historical document. This is off topic. If you want to discuss, open a thread in the Faith forums.Admin- Really? Is it not obvious that Dredge has no interest in any science based explanation. All he is going to do is hand wave it away with a reference to some book he believes has magical secrets. According to the rules of this site, this thread needs to be shut down.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Liars for Jesus is my favorite term for them.

Please be advised, just because you assert something does not make it true. By no standard is your bible an actual history. In order to be considered a document that recounts actual historical events it would need provenance and corroboration. That would just be the start to be considered a document reflecting actual history.

Are you totally incapable of doing even basic research? That's right you will claim it is leftist plot if you cannot find any evidence to support you.

Irrelevant does not mean things that do not fit into your religious views and things you disagree with.
Scientific evidence and facts are relevant.

No one has made such a claim. Do you have anything other than fallacious arguments?