How Accurate Is Science?
Salutations everyone! How is basil today?
Alright enough of that, I need some help on this so I'm turning over to basil.
Before I start; this is about evolution. The earliest ancestors of mankind, to australopithecus afarensis, homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo sapien sapien i.e us. For the purpose of this, the theory of evolution is being written about so I would prefer if Religious and Atheists do not start arguments over whether or not this is true. For the purpose of this thread it is; if you have any quarrels, this is not the place to voice them, sorry.
That being said, I would appreciate it if someone could help me with this. The question given to us to construct an essay on is "Can science accurately account for the origins of humans? " I've taken the stand on yes, it can but here's where I'm lacking.
I need examples.
You don't have to explain them in great detail.
Just a sentence or something as an example would be awesome help.
Remember, I'm agreeing that science can accurately account for human origins. I was thinking of something along the lines of fossils and the cranium size of fossils and how they would have evolved overtime and such. But any help with as many points as possible would be great
Good Day~
4 Comments • Newest first
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
The whole basis of your argument revolves around this fact.
Science varies
[quote=MarxMaster]How about writing something about what it exactly takes to be 99.99% sure?[/quote]
Well for the purpose of this I have to either fully agree or fully disagree that science can or cannot accurately explain our origins. I'm sorry I didn't really understand what you were saying previously. = If you can rephrase it, that'd be great but I did get a bit lost.
Timothydelaghetto beginning