Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
At least try to understand very simple logic, please.
OK, try to provide some.
I think I covered the ERVs here. Time for you to admit you were met, and stopped, and put in place here.
Any last word on ERVs?
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
OK, try to provide some.
I think I covered the ERVs here. Time for you to admit you were met, and stopped, and put in place here.
Your assumption of victory in the argument is horribly flawed.
__________________ “It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what's bad and it's really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term 'born again.' That truly describes freethinkers who've thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!” - Julia Sweeney
OK, try to provide some.
I think I covered the ERVs here. Time for you to admit you were met, and stopped, and put in place here.
Any last word on ERVs?
No, the problem I have is your insistence on entirely missing the point. I will try again.
Explanations that an accommodate any hypothetical observation are not useful. They are not useful because they don't tell us what we should expect to see. They don't tell us anything, except that what is is. For example, from the premise of creationism I have no idea what to expect to find when studying developmental biology. I have no idea what to expect out of comparative genomics. It doesn't provide any framework on which to hang the facts of biology. It is, in essence, useless.
To top it off, such explanations cannot be tested. They cannot be tested, again, because they do not expect any specific thing. If any hypothetical observation can be accommodated by the hypothesis, then no test could ever falsify it. An explanation that does not lend itself to falsification is not a scientific idea. If it cannot be tested, then it must be accepted on faith alone.
Evolution is both useful and testable. It is useful because it limits the kinds of observations we expect to see, and it provides the framework within which to study the facts of biology. It is testable because there are hypothetical observations that would falsify it. However, evolution has withstood all such tests over the last 150 years. That's why it is the central, unifying paradigm of modern biology and is not seriously doubted by biologists.
Your assumption of victory in the argument is horribly flawed.
I never said it was victory. (not that I don't realize it is)
I simply noted that I gave a position on ERVs, that no one can seemingly refute. That the ancestor of the RV used to get around differently than junior now does, and, has been passed down since then in the various creatures it had resided in.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
I never said it was victory. (not that I don't realize it is)
I simply noted that I gave a position on ERVs, that no one can seemingly refute. That the ancestor of the RV used to get around differently than junior now does, and, has been passed down since then in the various creatures it had resided in.
I never said it was victory. (not that I don't realize it is)
I simply noted that I gave a position on ERVs, that no one can seemingly refute. That the ancestor of the RV used to get around differently than junior now does, and, has been passed down since then in the various creatures it had resided in.
None of your positions can ever be refuted, because whatever we will observe, it will always fit in. No exceptions. That's exactly what makes your proposals so extremely worthless.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Explanations that an accommodate any hypothetical observation are not useful.
So, why would you consider it useful that the lifeform you claim appeared chose to make creatures as they now are? Why not three eyes, or asexual, etc?
They are not useful because they don't tell us what we should expect to see. They don't tell us anything, except that what is is.
Telling us more than what it is can be a tall tale.
For example, from the premise of creationism I have no idea what to expect to find when studying developmental biology.
Not true. At least in the way I have described it.
I have no idea what to expect out of comparative genomics. It doesn't provide any framework on which to hang the facts of biology. It is, in essence, useless.
Wrong! We still have the evolution from the original kind. In fact, if one were clever, realizing the actual facts here, one might miss some mistakes others might make, assuming a common single ancestor.
To top it off, such explanations cannot be tested.
As much as yours, look at the elephant tree! The only thing we can't test is your bit, about it coming from a worm!
They cannot be tested, again, because they do not expect any specific thing.
False, we expect the original kinds.
If any hypothetical observation can be accommodated by the hypothesis, then no test could ever falsify it. An explanation that does not lend itself to falsification is not a scientific idea. If it cannot be tested, then it must be accepted on faith alone.
Mine can be tested as much as yours, and mine doesn't break down from the elephant to the worm!
Evolution is both useful and testable.
I have plenty of that from the original kinds, so it is a moot point!
It is useful because it limits the kinds of observations we expect to see, and it provides the framework within which to study the facts of biology.
So does mine.
It is testable because there are hypothetical observations that would falsify it. However, evolution has withstood all such tests over the last 150 years.
Evolution is NOT the issue here! You are beating a dead horse. It is your claim there was nothing but evolution.
That's why it is the central, unifying paradigm of modern biology and is not seriously doubted by biologists.
The evolving of creations is not doubted by me either. The elephant from the worm is not what is supported.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
None of your positions can ever be refuted, because whatever we will observe, it will always fit in. No exceptions. That's exactly what makes your proposals so extremely worthless.
We never observed the ancestor RV getting around as junior does, did we? So, that makes your claims worthless! You cannot speak from a position of authority, observation, or evidence! So, mind your manners.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Wrong. All you've said is. "It was different once, and using some mechanism I cannot describe, and have no model to explain it, ERV's used to be able to magically insert themselves into different species in identical locations in such a way as to later infer a phylogeny supporting common ancestry of these species."
Linear Mode
