New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

Well ghost you keep offering new posts and I will read and scratch my itch with how new research can only suggest something as the thread title states very clearly

Suggest as a word doesn't sound like evidence, more faith if you believe.

Please continue, I await your next offering

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Well ghost you keep offering new posts and I will read and scratch my itch with how new research can only suggest something as the thread title states very clearly

Suggest as a word doesn't sound like evidence, more faith if you believe.

Please continue, I await your next offering

Yes, that darn word "Suggest", like all the other words scientist use in order to acknowledge that we cannot possibly know anything with absolute certainty, but instead with evidence that supports a particular conclusion over another.

You're arguing a point that doesn't exist.

(for maybe the 10th time this topic) Science doesn't deal with absolutes, it deals with probabilities. There is nothing in science that is certain with no chance of being wrong. The conclusions science comes to is always falsifiable.

If you want promises that claim absolute truth, and no way they can be wrong, all the religions in the world can help you out with that.

Until then, you're arguing a point that doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Well ghost you keep offering new posts and I will read and scratch my itch with how new research can only suggest something as the thread title states very clearly

Suggest as a word doesn't sound like evidence, more faith if you believe.

Please continue, I await your next offering

You really really don't understand science, do you?

I really really disagree

Suggest doesn't make evolution a science.
That seems to be what none of you evolutionists can understand

Evolution is a theory with no foundation outside of faith

I suggest aliens seeded the planet and
I suggest God created

Both valid theory based on suggestion, therefore science according to you

Oh maybe I need a science degree before I can offer a theory

Keep it up

Your arguing proves your tenuous grip on your faith.

You have to fight for this theory proves it is illegitimate, spurious, if it wasn't you could walk away in comfort knowing the validity.
Each post, each thread only proves you are manufacturing a belief because true science for evolution doesn't exist
What other science is so manufactured that data has to be suggested to reinforce a belief?

You really don't understand what science is

Why do you atheists hate science so much, why do you poison the pure waters of science with your religion of evolution, what have you against science to drag it through the mud and turn it into a religion.

Why hate science, I don't get it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

What you would propose would be best suited as a hypothesis, not a theory.

Theory in laymans terms is not the same as scientific theory, which has been explained to you more than once.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I really really disagree

Suggest doesn't make evolution a science.
That seems to be what none of you evolutionists can understand

Evolution is a theory with no foundation outside of faith

I suggest aliens seeded the planet and
I suggest God created

Both valid theory based on suggestion, therefore science according to you

Oh maybe I need a science degree before I can offer a theory

Keep it up

Your arguing proves your tenuous grip on your faith.

You have to fight for this theory proves it is illegitimate, spurious, if it wasn't you could walk away in comfort knowing the validity.
Each post, each thread only proves you are manufacturing a belief because true science for evolution doesn't exist
What other science is so manufactured that data has to be suggested to reinforce a belief?

You really don't understand what science is

Why do you atheists hate science so much, why do you poison the pure waters of science with your religion of evolution, what have you against science to drag it through the mud and turn it into a religion.

Why hate science, I don't get it.

You still haven't posted evidence - not even once valid citation - so who doesn't know science? Look in the mirror.
You don't even understand the definition and meaning of theory in science - what a joke.

a reply to: Ghost147

Everything you just said admits evolution is not a fact...
Facts are absolute...
That it relies on suggestion as it's proof...
Thus requires a leap of faith...
Evolutionists is not just a lie it is indeed a religion... for it requires your faith to believe it...
Darwin on the galopogos islands studies 14 different types of birds and concludes they all had the same ancestor... You know what they probably did...it was another bird...
Let's suppose a given species gives birth to a new species... where does the mate for this new species come from to continue the new species?
The odds for another mate to have been born by chance at the same time is bad enough odds...but when you add in the actual distance for them to cover thier territory seeking a mate and also the odds that another new alteration being born as the same new species the other had created is beyond belief the odds are insurmountable...
And that's not adding in the time that is supposed to be need for said evolution to take place when this is taken into consideration it becomes more than improbable it enters then into the realm of impossibility...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Everything you just said admits evolution is not a fact...
Facts are absolute...
That it relies on suggestion as it's proof...
Thus requires a leap of faith...
Evolutionists is not just a lie it is indeed a religion... for it requires your faith to believe it...
Darwin on the galopogos islands studies 14 different types of birds and concludes they all had the same ancestor... You know what they probably did...it was another bird...
Let's suppose a given species gives birth to a new species... where does the mate for this new species come from to continue the new species?
The odds for another mate to have been born by chance at the same time is bad enough odds...but when you add in the actual distance for them to cover thier territory seeking a mate and also the odds that another new alteration being born as the same new species the other had created is beyond belief the odds are insurmountable...
And that's not adding in the time that is supposed to be need for said evolution to take place when this is taken into consideration it becomes more than improbable it enters then into the realm of impossibility...

There are no absolutes! Science is about discovery and evidence - that's it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Alright, so what do you consider science? Can you name a particular subject or theory?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Everything you just said admits evolution is not a fact...
Facts are absolute...

I fully admit that the Theory of Evolution is not a fact

I also fully admit that Evolution is a fact.

I fully admit that Heliocentric theory is not a fact

I also fully admit that the planetary orbits of the sun is a fact.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
That it relies on suggestion as it's proof...
Thus requires a leap of faith...

This is how science works. The acknowledgement that we cannot possible know everything.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Darwin on the galopogos islands studies 14 different types of birds and concludes they all had the same ancestor... You know what they probably did...it was another bird...

Ah, so you admit that evolution is evident then. Perhaps you are capable of learning.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Let's suppose a given species gives birth to a new species... where does the mate for this new species come from to continue the new species?

If that ever occurred, that would mean that the theory of evolution is wrong. If you can produce this to a scientist you will win a Nobel prize.

A Species does not give birth to another species. That event goes against the theory of evolution entirely.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
The odds for another mate to have been born by chance at the same time is bad enough odds...but when you add in the actual distance for them to cover thier territory seeking a mate and also the odds that another new alteration being born as the same new species the other had created is beyond belief the odds are insurmountable...

You are absolutely correct (that isn't sarcasm).

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
And that's not adding in the time that is supposed to be need for said evolution to take place when this is taken into consideration it becomes more than improbable it enters then into the realm of impossibility...

Also absolutely correct. According to our current observations, your example would be impossible.

Good thing the theory of evolution doesn't suggest it functions the way you just described.

It is suggested a reptile laid an egg and it was a not a reptile it had evolved into the first bird when it hatched...

This brings about the age old question...
"What came first the chicken or the egg?"

Many can't answer this question...but the answer is a fact...
The chicken came first because only the mature hen carries what is required to create the shell of the egg...

When we look back at earlier forms of man as one example we see how the species makes a progression over time and the old forms disappear...

Apes didn't disappear they have made this progression along thier own line...

If we go back even further back into evolution we are led to believe the universe was created from nothing spontaneously. ..or that it always was...

No thing comes from nothing there is no other possibility...
If everything always was then it always would be... Nothing in the universe is deemed so even black holes...

Energy and mass are believed to be the only things that can be assumed as constant throughout the universe...This is admittedly not considered proof that energy and mass always were...

When we look at the dna of man it is suggested that actual manipulation has occurred that it was purposefully altered...

This is not evidence of evolution quite the contrary either it was an effect of additional radiation levels morphing dna structure or a higher individual physically altering it's code for thier own desired effect...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
This brings about the age old question...
"What came first the chicken or the egg?"

Many can't answer this question...but the answer is a fact...
The chicken came first because only the mature hen carries what is required to create the shell of the egg...

Actually, if you knew about evolution you can answer this with more accuracy. The answer is neither came first.

Chickens diverged from another species that also laid eggs. So it was a gradual change from their ancestor, to what we know them as today. Evolution occurs at a very slow, very gradual pace over successive generations. For a mutation to spontaneously occur that formed something as complex as Egg-Laying would actually disprove evolution.

Another way to look at it is that nothing is a 'fully formed' species, everything is simply in a state of transitioning. Because Evolution hasn't been observed to stop at any period in history, all life on earth is in a constant state of evolving. We only describe things as a species because we're viewing it from a particular snapshot in time.

Furthermore, if we were to look at the question from another perspective, it would technically be the egg, considering it's ancestors also laid eggs. So, the question would have to clarify which 'egg' it was referring to: 'The chicken or the chicken egg?' or, 'The chicken or egg laying?'

If we look at the question from a more generalized perspective - "what came first, the organism or the egg" - we can also show that organisms came first. The very earliest life reproduced Asexually, and so eggs and egg laying were a product of evolution.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
When we look back at earlier forms of man as one example we see how the species makes a progression over time and the old forms disappear...

Correct

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Apes didn't disappear they have made this progression along thier own line...

We are apes...

Evolution isn't linear, it branches out like a tree. It's why we have the term 'shared ancestor' and what the OP is all about.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
If we go back even further back into evolution we are led to believe the universe was created from nothing spontaneously. ..or that it always was...

The universe has nothing to do with biological evolution. Biological evolution only pertains to life once it already exists.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
When we look at the dna of man it is suggested that actual manipulation has occurred that it was purposefully altered...

For a purpose? no, nothing suggests that. We certainly don't know everything about our DNA, and the things that are oddities leave us pondering, but to suggest they were there for a purpose is just ridiculous and entirely speculative. If there was some sort of signature, then yes, that would suggest what you claim.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
This is not evidence of evolution quite the contrary either it was an effect of additional radiation levels morphing dna structure or a higher individual physically altering it's code for thier own desired effect...

Ah good, you seem very certain, so you can provide citations then?

The argument that asexual reproduction later resulted in different sex and a mate was then required points to the lie of evolution... which is a progression...

Due to the fact this can not be considered a progression or any safety measure insuring successful reproduction...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
The argument that asexual reproduction later resulted in different sex and a mate was then required points to the lie of evolution... which is a progression...

Due to the fact this can not be considered a progression or any safety measure insuring successful reproduction...

Excellent opinion!

Now your citation? or are you just going to leave it unsubstantiated

a reply to: Ghost147

I'm satisfied with it being my opinion and welcome others to ponder it themselves...
Perhaps they can come to thier own logical conclusion...
It is highly suggest able after all...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

I'm satisfied with it being my opinion and welcome others to ponder it themselves...
Perhaps they can come to thier own logical conclusion...
It is highly suggest able after all...

fair enough

The instruction set or the code used by an embryo is predisposed and any natural progression is already therfore there or in other words pre planned...

This is also highly suggest able evidence of creation and in no way points to evolution...

Mutation or genetic manipulation and hybridization are not evidence of evolution...

High level objectives come first the details always follow after...

You know...

Hierarchical arrangement of parts...

....

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
The instruction set or the code used by an embryo is predisposed and any natural progression is already therfore there or in other words pre planned...

Actually, it's a foundation for Evolution. That code is DNA, and if it were created we wouldn't expect to see any new information whatsoever, nor would we see mutation rates at all, nor would we see random changes in allele frequencies over successive generations, resulting in speciation over time.

Sorry, but your supposition is simply inaccurate.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Most people with a solid theory and scientific data would use that information to shut down an argument

I guess going after the man and not the evidence indicates how flacky your argument is.

Evidence trumps slander

Just back your argument up with solid evidence

Not a fly evolving into a fly, that's assumption

No, I've literally done this exact same thing with him at least twice before maybe thrice. So have others. Would you like to read them?? I can link you.

I'm not surprised you're defending him tho.