I did not say there is no philogeny done at all in hominids, my dear AGuest. I said the research is just starting and not much has been done yet. There is no conclusion yet from the experts, so feel free to hold back your final conclusion before they postulate theirs.
I understand, dear Gerard (peace to you!). I'm thinking that just based on the 2006 Neanderthalensis Genome Project SOME philogeny has been done and I am not limited to that. I do think it's interesting, however, that what was discerned by that study has been... well, dismissed, here.
Moving on; when a scientist writes "most likely" is because there is hard proof - the equivalent for a lawyer saying "beyond any reasonable doubt". "The most likely scenario" in science is infinitely most accurate (eg: real) than any "most likey scenario" a creationists may present, because science uses testable physical facts, not make believe stories (this is the part where creationists wave their Bible as it was a self-evident unifying treatise of quantum mechanics with relativity).
I disagree, at least with the latter part of your statement. Science DOES use testable phyiscal facts, yes. But unless those have been done against the subject at hand, it's still speculation. Still... "most likely" versus "true." For example, until the NGP, it was "most likely" that neanderthalensis was an entirely different species. Based on... what? But that was the "likelihood." Now, due to the NGP, it's not necessarily so likely; indeed, it's most likely to be UNlikely.
What you stubornly refuse to notice (or acknowledge) is that the difference between scientific evidence and religious "evidence" is that science is based on physical facts which anybody can test and duplicate; while your Bible (the product of creative goat herders) are fables, parables, allegories and myths, which you -as a follower of the faith- have to accept without testing or reasoning just because a goat-herder said so. Did they mention real towns and cities in the Bible? Big deal! It does not mean all of its content is real. Is the Earth the center of the Solar system? (please say no). Written myths do not mean that dead people actually rise from their graves on command, or that talking bushes exist. Chosing to believe it is not the same as finding out if it does happen.
Ummmm... you must have entirely misread what I posted... and so misunderstand my position. I am not going to reclarify, but only ask you to take a moment and read what I posted, if you would be so kind to. In case you don't, please note that I have no Bible... I do not accept all that is in the Bible, nor do I HAVE to accept ANY of it... and my position as to those who say such things are "evidence" is the same as yours. How did you miss all of that? I know how: because you already thought you "knew" me before you replied, so you didn't bother to really read what I wrote, but just skimmed. No surprise, there.
The day we agree on the same meaning of the word "FACT" then we will have a fruitful conversation, because you keep confusing theory with stories, knowledge with belief, fact with faith and physical proofs with 'the Bible said so'.
Ummmm... you're gonna be really embarassed when you realize that (1) I stated no such thing, because (2) I believe no such thing.
To finish, I reiterate to you that there is not a single scientific peer-reviewed research paper ever published by creationists, and you dismiss this so casualy as if the inmensity of its implication was not even relevant to your argument.
I did not dismiss this, casually or otherwise. I have no idea if that is true or not. Could be. Could be someone else would disagree with you. It had absolutely nothing to do with my questions, however, nor does it provide an answer.
If you are ignorant of this fact, it does not void it, for the same reason you cannot break the law just because you are ignorant of it.
Well, no, it does not. But I never made such a statement or even alluded to it.
Ask yourself: why there is no scientific peer-reviewed research papers on creationism? (if your consciense or gods allow allow you to THINK challenging ideas).
My mind does so allow, dear one; however, I think I would have to sure that your assertion is true... and if so to what extent does it affect my goal, here, which was to understand how something that could be (and probably was) peer-reviewed PROVES something that, as it stands, does not.
Want me to prove their inexistence?
Whose inexistence? Who/what are you speaking of? Oh, you mean God and Christ? Well, if you really feel you can...
Better you prove us their existence and Google a couple of peer-reviewed scientific papers on creationism and put me in my place.
Why? I don't care what place you're in, dear one. This thread wasn't about proving/disproving the existence of God and Christ (which I can prove to you, but you'd have to be willing to use the proper methods for obtaining such proof - and since God and Christ are spirits, the "usual" methods... i.e., those pertaining to proving things in the PHYSICAL world... won't suffice). It [orginally] was about non-evidence reasons by people embrace evolution. Which, IMHO, are as valid as the "evidence" reasons.
The facts on this and a multitude of scientific concepts have been offered to you, and you keep dismissing them not with additional counteracting FACTS, but with your arbitrary preference for religious myths and faith/emotion.
The facts on a multitude of scientific concepts have been offered, and I have accepted each one FOR WHAT THEY SHOW. The do NOT, however, show how evolution has occurred among hominids. They show how, IF such occurred, most likely it would have occurred. But it does NOT show that it DID... or DOES... occur. Even so, the experiment I offered, the NGP... showed how perhaps it DIDN'T occur, at all.
But your response is, to me, NO different than Bible-thumping religionists... particularly the WTBTS... who, when what they THOUGHT was absolutely TRUE is shown to either be UNTRUE, or "most likely" to be untrue... go all Rambo on you. "You just can't SEE it, you stupid lady." Where, pray tell, is the difference between your "argument" (that I'm just stupid and so keep "dismissing" the "facts"... when I've addressed ALL of the "facts" presented)... and theirs (that I'm just stupid and so keep dismissing the "facts"... when I address ALL of the "facts" THEY present)? I see absolutely NO difference... and so am not any more inclined to believe YOU... than I am to brlieve THEM.
I understand that "god did it" is a very warm and fussy idea, but you will not grow in wisdom when you resort to it when you don't like the [physical] evidence presented?
"God did it," is a trite, insufficient response. HOW He did it... which I've shared... actually COMPORTS... with the "facts", dear Gerard.
If you don't like the answers, don't do the questions.
I would exhort you to take your own advice, in addition to (1) "if you don't know the answers, don't presume to take on the questions; and (2) if you don't like the questions, consider skipping the thread."
If the answers brought by science are not good enough for you, it is OK, really, as it is good enough for human civilization.
The answers were quite good for me, dear one, so far as what they actually show... and not what some speculate/presume/assume/teach/push/insist they show... when they do not.
I hope this clarifies what you obviously are QUITE unclear about.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,