Endogenous retroviruses

Thank you! Then it accomodates the life we see on earth. Nothing you have locks down the evidence as something that is against creation. All you do is also try to accommodate a physical only, material only, present observation of the evidence, man as animals, evo world view.
Amazing you got away with it so long.

An explanation that can explain any hypothetical observation fails to explain anything.

Your assertion that creationism is true is utterly untestable, because there is absolutely no way to falsify it.

Any and all observations would be consistent with it. A test that will always confirm the thing being tested, regardless of the outcome, isn't actually testing anything.

No, because you can't lay any scientific claim on the state of the past, you are only right in your mind!

You just get in line, with the beliefs. When you pass through school doors, you line up with other beliefs as the one.

Now we simply look at who has the most evidenced , time tested, and solid belief. That is where we are with that here.

But they consider it not broke down connecting one form of life to another form, because it looks somewhat the same in some ways, or. 'traits', no?

The general idea is good, is what I am saying, as a classification option, but it does not evidence evolution everywhere, only some places. The connections between kinds are not real, and a leap of faith.

ERVs themselves, I think represent something other than a common ancestor, as discussed already here. The so called tree of life, off topic here, but you could not defend the connections, because it was started from created kinds.

Creationism is a big set of ideas that are almost as different as those that hold them, so you cannot say creationism does this or that. You could say something like, "flood geologists say this..." or etc.
Creationism in essence says that God created life on earth, as the bible says. In the view of a different past creation, the evidence agrees. One could say that according to evolution, we might have evolved to pink unicorns, rather than man, or whatever, so it is evolution that fails to explain anything!

No, your claim it is NOT true is utterly untestable, because there is absolutely no way to falsify it. Neither can the past be tested, where you claim some lifeform 'appeared'. All this means is that poor little science can't do it, it isn't up to the task, or even close.
Which brings us round to you, claiming science, coughing up the goods for your claim! How did that elephant come from a worm? Your answer is no more valid than a fairy tale! At least as far as science can go!

Everything is consistant with my ideas at least as much as yours, and a whole lot more, cause mine also embrace a known spiritual, and the bible to boot! Can' t top that.

Why not? All one needs to do to make a scientific claim is make a specific prediction that can be falsified. This applies to the past just as well as the present.

No I don't. I believe very differently on the details of a number of theories with other people I converse with. We debate all the time. The difference between what we do and what you are doing right now is that we don't assume that we are correct ahead of time as you do. We test and see who is correct.

That would be the scientific conclusions. Just because a belief is old doesn't make it true. That would be the logical fallacy of argument from tradition.

No. They consider it doesn't break down because you categorize animals animals systematically, it doesn't.

No, they are not. Since genetics shows the tree of life to hold independently from morphology, this does point to evolution.

Bull. As long as you have no better explanation for the tree of life (including ERV's),

Let me try this again. There is no possible observation that would falsify creationism.

This is because creationism does not tell us anything nontrivial about how the world should behave if creationism were true.

It doesn't tell us what kind of evidence must exist if creationism were true. It can explain anything that could ever be thrown at it.

On the other hand, this is not true of evolution.

It does tell us how things must be if evolution is true. It can be falsified by hypothetical observations. Evolution does predict necessary consequences of the theory.

It's nice to see you try to use the language of science. It is a shame you don't know how.

Creationism is unfalsifiable because it does not lead to testable deductions. We can deduce nothing about the limitations of a supernatural creator, as such we cannot limit what such a thing might produce.

If there are no hypothetical limits to an explanation then it cannot be tested.

Explanations of the past can be tested. All you need to do is deduce some necessary consequence of your explanation, and set about confirming or denying those consequences. This is a form of logic known as Modus Tollens, and is a very important part of the Hypothetico-deductive method of science.

Your explanation can explain anything. And that is its weakness.

In being able to accommodate anything, it fails to actually explain why anything is specifically the way it is.

The only way it could apply to the dep past is if your assumption and prediction that it was the same state was right. That you can't have. As it is, you are left with anything based on that as assumption and belief only, like it or not.

You don't need your assumptions to be right to ask a scientific question. In fact, you often expect that your assumptions are wrong on some level (we know, for instance, that general relativity or quantum mechanics must be wrong on some level, but we don't know where yet). You just make the assumption, find the logical conclusions of that assumption, and then see if it matches the real world.

You don't want to place any biases (if possible) on the assumptions that people can make: the assumptions only must have observable effects to be useful for science.

Now, once you do that, it is not infrequent to find that there is more than one explanation for the physical world. So once we have more than one theory that is consistent with the physical world, we take the theory that is the simplest. Typically this is considered as being measured by the number of input parameters. For example, take evolution. Evolution is about as simple a theory as we can possibly get because it has zero input parameters: every single parameter can, in principle, be directly measured.

Special creation of all species, on the other hand, has an obscene number of parameters: in order to describe the theory, you have to fully describe each and every animal independent of every other animal. Thus evolution is vastly simpler than creation.

In principle this might be avoided such that you could define the diety responsible for creation in such a way that it would predict exactly all of the animals that we see on the Earth today, but I don't think this is remotely possible.