Animals are inferior to humans

I will now use this round to address and deconstruct Pro's points, as he directs his arguments towards me. I feel before making my point, I should also address his/her points. Each rebuttal will be two each point he tries to make, such as the argument from the creationist website. I feel it will make my case easier to follow. R1 - The Scientific Method And Reliability Of ItPro said: "Oh sure, turn to science and biology to prove your point. Does anyone even take the scienfic method seriously? Just for starters."Why would I not? do you expect me to retort your notion at your standard or lower? To answer this quite bluntly, yes. Anyone who follows science does. Theories and laws have come about because of them. What is the method? "The steps of the scientific method go something like this: 1 - Make an observation or observations. 2 - Ask questions about the observations and gather information. 3 - Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis. 4 - Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced. 5 - Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary. 6 - Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. “Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science.""[1]"Some key underpinnings to the scientific method: - The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis. - Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach. - An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change). - An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against."[1]So does anyone take this seriously? Of course. It's logically based. The real question should be directed to the very source Pro cited. Can a source that is dedicated to Creationism of the Christian religion to be taken seriously? It's quite literally the same as a Flat Earth website. Yes, they are trying to destroy credibility to the Scientific Method. Why would they not? They have been proven wrong, so if they prove the method wrong, they have room to argue that they are right and with legitimacy then before. It's an attempt at saving face because science has proven creationism by Genesis wrong. A Flat Earther would do the same, because the very thing 'proving' them wrong is science, so why not try to prove science wrong?The author is John R. Baumgardner, a geophysicist, young earth creationist, intelligent design supporter and Christian. He has a bias by very definition and is the same as Kan Ham and Kent Hovind.If you read the article, you will see where the person they interview states that the scientific method can fail by person bias, in what you believe and what you perceive. They twist this in supporting the sites bias, creationism. And they do so by calling out a scientific mistake being the origins. Of course. No one should be surprised. The site itself is fallacious all in of itself. It even goes after other theories in science which have since been essentially proven as much as a theory can get in science through mountains of evidence.R2 - Simple Responses"Recently, however, even as metaphysics has come under attack for its apparent lack of access to real knowledge, so has science begun to have its own difficulties in claiming absolute knowledge. " pbs.orgThe issue here is science doesn't claim, nor ever has, absolute knowledge. Science doesn't prove anything, and someone who is knee deep in science would know such a thing. This quote is taken out of context of what is real.Pro Says - "When Does the Scientific Method Fail?""Are there circumstances in which the scientific method ought to work, but for which the method does not provide "an accurate representation of the world"--that is, a correct description of the way things really are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As Professor Wolfs mentions above, "personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena."" icr.org"And that response from Wolf speaks of exactly what the ICR are doing. But they write it so you don't see that. What Wolf say's doesn't support them, it supports that it fails under basic bias. And as such, you are, my opponent, doing just that by going after the scientific method by making a weak attempt at disproving it or showing its 'flaws' because I used science. So if you do that, it would somehow disprove anything I said. Sadly for you, it doesn't nor would. Humans are animals. Evolution even shows this.[2][3]"Its like the old expression "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" wikipedia."No it's not. You are not even using that phrase right. That phrase is based on reality. It's similar to "How do you know I can't fly when you turn away?" or "How do you know we are not all in a matrix?" It has nothing to do with any point you have made, just as ICR sites fails at making a point to agree with them when it argues against their very view of the world and how their bias allows the Scientific Method to fail. It fails because of you and your bias or your inability to truly differ what you want or think with reality. We can scientifically know that a tree makes noise by just basic physics and math. Do you honestly doubt a tree makes noise when you are not there? How does noise travel? In a medium, like air and water. How is noise created? Sound is the rapid varying pressure wave traveling through a medium.[4] So, does a tree make a sound when in the woods and it falls down? Yes, obviously so. If you are skeptical of that, you should just be skeptical because nothing in reality can absolutely be 'proven', just as you can not prove everything is fake and this is a est and I am God testing you. You can't know nor ever will unless I personally deem it so for you to "know". Assuming you accept me telling you so.The scientific method is the most logical way we can test things. Is it absolute? No. No one is claiming the method is perfect. We don't follow science because of the method being infallible. We follow what has gone through the method and critically analyzed and where the incidence points.Is there a sun? Yes. What is some basic evidence? You can see it. We can send a prob to it. You name it. The evidence points to it being there, and as such, we do the same with science. Except we know when to admit when we are wrong. And if we are, we adapts by correcting our selves. We don;'t know everything nor claim too.I would like to make my final remarks that Pro has not, in his last post at least, made any argument for the topic and actually derailed from defending himself. Cited Work:1) http://www.livescience.com...2) http://io9.com...3) http://cdn.phys.org...4) https://www.caa.co.uk...