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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Assertions are not facts. You have as of yet not given any valid reason that ID would not produce a nested hierarchy.
Why would they?
No, it means that there are features and functions that show similarity to known human design in comparison.Appearance of design is "it just looks designed".
You made the claim it is up to you to support it.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.
No, it means that there are features and functions that show similarity to known human design in comparison.
You made the claim it is up to you to support it.
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 "appearanceNo, it means that there are features and functions that show similarity to known human design in comparison.
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.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.
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.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?
You have revelation or speculation.
If as a evolutionist they would admit (as some have admitted) they believe an animal can become a scientist by faith
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.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.
This is evidence that man can glue pieces of skull together to fit his assumption.We have real life evidence.
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.A scientist is an animal by definition.
Where is you evidence of an animal becoming a scientist?-
Also, we have evidence for evolution. No need for faith. Why do you try to discredit evolution by making it look like your beliefs?
and Exogenous retroviruses come from ERV which scientist have been able to repeat.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?
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.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
I'll look at the paper. I am on my way out pretty soon here and I want to read it all.
What do you mean by a "highly conserved gene" in creationism? Explain?
Assertions are not facts. You have as of yet not given any valid reason that ID would not produce a nested hierarchy.
This is evidence that man can glue pieces of skull together to fit his assumption.
I watch that video and I didn't see how evolution was used to combat HIV.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.
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.If all you can do is accuse people of fraud in order to ignore the evidence, then you have lost.
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.
If all you can do is accuse people of fraud in order to ignore the evidence, then you have lost.
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.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.
Appearance of design is "it just looks designed".
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.
Also how else can we determine if something design or not.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?