Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Loudmouth]

Assertions are not facts. You have as of yet not given any valid reason that ID would not produce a nested hierarchy.

You have not given one valid reason why it would.

Why would they?

Why wouldn't they?

If you can't answer these questions, then it supports my claim that it makes no such predictions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearance of design is "it just looks designed".

No, it means that there are features and functions that show similarity to known human design in comparison.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have not given one valid reason why it would.



Why wouldn't they?

If you can't answer these questions, then it supports my claim that it makes no such predictions.

You made the claim it is up to you to support it.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it means that there are features and functions that show similarity to known human design in comparison.

Human designs also show similarity to things we know are produced by natural processes.

 

[Loudmouth]

You made the claim it is up to you to support it.

I just did. No one can come up with a single reason why common design would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. Therefore, it is not a prediction of common design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it means that there are features and functions that show similarity to known human design in comparison.

Please note that the word "appearance" is a qualifier. "Appearance of design" does not mean "designed" if someone meant "designed" they would drop the qualifier "appearance

 

[Smidlee]

How come you get to demand process details but creationists don't have to show process details? No creationist has ever specified the level of detail in creation you are demanding from evolutionists.

You have revelation or speculation. Now creationist doesn't claim we know the details but only God knows the detail. My faith in God revelation and not in man's speculation.
If as a evolutionist they would admit (as some have admitted) they believe an animal can become a scientist by faith then they would be on the same level as everyone else including creationist.

If creationist give credit to God then we are accused of being anti-science of saying "God did it" but it's "scientific" to give credit credit to everything but God ... "Nature did it" "Evolution did it" "Natural selection did it." "Stuff haapens"

Not a problem. The virus normally leaves the altered DNA as part of infecting the host. Its the nature of the virus to do infecting like that.

Or are you asking for how viruses originally evolved?

Virus can't reproduce themselves so exact where did they get their genetic code except from living cell ... ERV which some have already be shown to have function.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have revelation or speculation.

We have real life evidence.

If as a evolutionist they would admit (as some have admitted) they believe an animal can become a scientist by faith

A scientist is an animal by definition.

Also, we have evidence for evolution. No need for faith. Why do you try to discredit evolution by making it look like your beliefs?

Virus can't reproduce themselves so exact where did they get their genetic code except from living cell ... ERV which some have already be shown to have function.

ERV's come from exogenous retroviruses which we already know exist. Do we have to find the ultimate origin of water before we can explain what clouds are made of?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have revelation or speculation. Now creationist doesn't claim we know the details but only God knows the detail. My faith in God revelation and not in man's speculation.

Virus can't reproduce themselves so exact where did they get their genetic code except from living cell ... ERV which some have already be shown to have function.

No, you are misusing the word "speculation". You also have a false dichotomy there. And the fact that ERV's can have some function means very little. We still know that they are from viruses. The part of the ERV that is of use is at the beginning or ending of the virus if I remember correctly. Also they have "revived" a recent ERV.

 

[Smidlee]

We have real life evidence.

This is evidence that man can glue pieces of skull together to fit his assumption.

A scientist is an animal by definition.

If scientist are animals then why should anyone trust a glorified ape to do science. To an ape there is nothing in biology that makes senses except in the light of bananas.

-
Also, we have evidence for evolution. No need for faith. Why do you try to discredit evolution by making it look like your beliefs?

Where is you evidence of an animal becoming a scientist?

ERV's come from exogenous retroviruses which we already know exist. Do we have to find the ultimate origin of water before we can explain what clouds are made of?

and Exogenous retroviruses come from ERV which scientist have been able to repeat.

 

[Smidlee]

No, you are misusing the word "speculation". You also have a false dichotomy there. And the fact that ERV's can have some function means very little

To those who want to believe in evolution. It's make even more sense that the origins of virus came from ERV than the other way around since living cell can reproduce.

 

[The Cadet]

I'll look at the paper. I am on my way out pretty soon here and I want to read it all.

I also strongly recommend watching those C0nc0rdance videos I linked earlier. It goes into a lot of detail of how evolution was used to combat HIV.

What do you mean by a "highly conserved gene" in creationism? Explain?

The concept of gene conservation has to do with the evolution of organisms. Basically, a gene is highly conserved if mutations to that gene tend to be highly problematic for the creature in question, and as a result it is very unlikely to mutate significantly. In the case of HIV, it turns out that therapies that mess with this gene are highly significant to the disease's ability to spread. This makes no sense with intelligent design. If these were all separately designed kinds, the entire concept of "gene conservation" would be incoherent. There would not be any reason for similar species to show similarly conserved genes, or for them to form a similar nested hierarchy. This is yet another prediction which ID can account for, but not in any intellectually satisfying manner (as it can just as equally account for the opposite explanation).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Assertions are not facts. You have as of yet not given any valid reason that ID would not produce a nested hierarchy.

Because they can't. It naturally would produce a nested hierarchy, Just like we know the hierarchy exists for family lineage, the hierarchy for dog breeds (which prevents them from naming them as separate species). When two things mate and produce offspring - a hierarchy is the natural consequence. All they have is strawmen.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is evidence that man can glue pieces of skull together to fit his assumption.

If all you can do is accuse people of fraud in order to ignore the evidence, then you have lost.

 

[Smidlee]

I also strongly recommend watching those C0nc0rdance videos I linked earlier. It goes into a lot of detail of how evolution was used to combat HIV.

I watch that video and I didn't see how evolution was used to combat HIV.

If all you can do is accuse people of fraud in order to ignore the evidence, then you have lost.

From what I've read most of those skulls are in many piece so there were some guessing of gluing them back together. Skull 5 was a whole Skull that prove the evolutionist assumptions were wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

To those who want to believe in evolution. It's make even more sense that the origins of virus came from ERV than the other way around since living cell can reproduce.

We can directly observe retroviruses producing ERV's in the koala population as we speak.

http://www.genomebiology.com/2006/7/11/241

We can also observe retroviruses producing very real ERV's in the lab.

Also, you don't get functional retroviruses out of ERV's until you remove all of the mutations. This is the opposite of what we should expect to see if ERV's are producing retroviruses. Your claims make no sense if you actually understand the evidence and genetics.

 

[Smidlee]

If all you can do is accuse people of fraud in order to ignore the evidence, then you have lost.

We can directly observe retroviruses producing ERV's in the koala population as we speak.

http://www.genomebiology.com/2006/7/11/241

We can also observe retroviruses producing very real ERV's in the lab.

Also, you don't get functional retroviruses out of ERV's until you remove all of the mutations. This is the opposite of what we should expect to see if ERV's are producing retroviruses. Your claims make no sense if you actually understand the evidence and genetics.

So virus and it's code just popped into existence? ERV speaks just how useless evolution is. If natural selection can't select out virus then it proves it's complete useless.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Appearance of design is "it just looks designed".

Appearance of differences just lead you to name fossils different species - even if you understand by observation it is breed mating with breed. Appearances of similarity cause you to proclaim species are related. Now suddenly things are not what they appear when you observe design???? So we can logically say the same things about fossils and similarities? They just look to be related?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because they can't. It naturally would produce a nested hierarchy, Just like we know the hierarchy exists for family lineage, the hierarchy for dog breeds (which prevents them from naming them as separate species). When two things mate and produce offspring - a hierarchy is the natural consequence. All they have is strawmen.

I am not the one claiming that ID would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. That would be Oncedeceived.

Are you also incapable of explain how a nested hierarchy is a necessary outcome of ID/creationism? We see mammal-like reptiles, so why not mammal-like birds?

 

[Smidlee]

Appearance of differences just lead you to name fossils different species - even if you understand by observation it is breed mating with breed. Appearances of similarity cause you to proclaim species are related. Now suddenly things are not what they appear when you observe design???? So we can logically say the same things about fossils and similarities? They just look to be related?

Also how else can we determine if something design or not.
My computer appears intelligent designed. It's doesn't smell designed. It's doesn't taste designed. It's doesn't sound designed.