Lines of Evidence ( Part 1 : ERVs )

[OldWiseGuy]

To expose the pseudoscience of creationism.

I rely on science to demonstrate creation. The incredible complexity and sophistication of it all...

 

[sfs]

No. Letting off a little wild flame or two after the tension and excitement of the play, would hardly have earned me expulsion. Unless, I'd done so outside of curfew -- at most one might have received a sound caning for that.

As you well know, if one is an integral part of the sporting activities at certain classy schools -- they don't easily let one go.

No. I was a boarder and one of the teachers had a penchant for exploiting lonely boys. Along with abusing his authority by having me run errands at his every beck and call, he also took to belittling and demeaning me -- to the point where I could handle it no longer. I packed my rucksack, tossed my cheese cutter out onto the Junior school rugby field where I'd spent many an afternoon training and left the school -- and what might have been the best possible education I could have ever received.

Being absent outside of two weeks, I was warned to return or be expelled. I chose to remain hidden and finished my third year at a C-model school (co-ed -- nice) -- Unfortunately I was too wild (a child of the times) and during the first term of my fourth year there, I chose to crib directly from my Science book; was found out; got sent to see the headmaster; met him en-route and was sent packing with the stern words, "Never come back to this school!"

Interesting life.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Interesting life.

Yeah, it's been a crazy roller coaster ride! I think school pretty much began to fade into the background once I discovered that I had natural skill sets which only required daily life to groom them. (that happened about two years before my first expulsion) Hence my interest in academic pursuits has been more of a hobby than a passion.
i.e. Evolution (esp. Human Evolution)

 

[SkyWriting]

Now there's something I don't read everyday:

'....Human endogenous retroviruses are believed to be the legacy of ancient germ cell infections by exogenous retroviruses, dating from 60 million years ago to the present. ....'

~~~
* Human endogenous retroviruses in health and disease: a symbiotic perspective

I'm happy you pointed out the religious belief basis for the science.
You correctly identified how rare it is to be noted as faith based.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm happy you pointed out the religious belief basis for the science.

How is that a religious belief?

 

[Loudmouth]

I rely on science to demonstrate creation. The incredible complexity and sophistication of it all...

Then you accept common ancestry between humans and chimps, and the evolution of both lineages?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I rely on science to demonstrate creation. The incredible complexity and sophistication of it all...

Uh-hum.
Evolution doesn't really demonstrate creation. If you're going to go back that far, you'd probably need to summon the locksmith. (or a physicist*)

~~~
* Prof. Steven Wienberg:

'....This work on the very early universe represents real progress, but it is progress of a conceptual sort, only distantly related to observations of the present universe. We are today not much closer than we were in 1976 in understanding the origin of the structures that fill our universe: galaxies and clusters of galaxies. As we look out at the night sky, the great arc of the Milky Way and the faint luminous patch of the Andromeda Nebula continue to mock our ignorance.' (from 'The First Three Minutes' )

 

[Loudmouth]

Uh-hum.
Evolution doesn't really demonstrate creation.

Why not?

Why can't God create through natural processes?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then you accept common ancestry between humans and chimps, and the evolution of both lineages?

Will you accept that "natural selection" is really the hand of God working? All that is needed is for you to see actual purpose in the creation instead of blind luck.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Uh-hum.
Evolution doesn't really demonstrate creation. If you're going to go back that far, you'd probably need to summon the locksmith. (or a physicist*)

~~~
* Prof. Steven Wienberg:

'....This work on the very early universe represents real progress, but it is progress of a conceptual sort, only distantly related to observations of the present universe. We are today not much closer than we were in 1976 in understanding the origin of the structures that fill our universe: galaxies and clusters of galaxies. As we look out at the night sky, the great arc of the Milky Way and the faint luminous patch of the Andromeda Nebula continue to mock our ignorance.' (from 'The First Three Minutes' )

Science presents the evidence, I interpret it.

 

[The Cadet]

Will you accept that "natural selection" is really the hand of God working? All that is needed is for you to see actual purpose in the creation instead of blind luck.

But it isn't blind luck. Natural selection is not really a luck-based process.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But it isn't blind luck. Natural selection is not really a luck-based process.

So it's intelligence based?

 

[Loudmouth]

Will you accept that "natural selection" is really the hand of God working? All that is needed is for you to see actual purpose in the creation instead of blind luck.

I will accept that God acting through evolution is a faith based belief that has no evidence against it which puts it a leg up on YEC, OEC, and ID. I have seen christians claim that God has blessed them or helped them even though the events are indistinguishable from random events. This is because they have faith that God is looking out for them, even if events appear to be random. Why would evolution be any different than the rest of science that you already accept?

Also, all that you need to do is evidence purpose and I will accept it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I will accept that God acting through evolution is a faith based belief that has no evidence against it which puts it a leg up on YEC, OEC, and ID. I have seen christians claim that God has blessed them or helped them even though the events are indistinguishable from random events. This is because they have faith that God is looking out for them, even if events appear to be random. Why would evolution be any different than the rest of science that you already accept?

Also, all that you need to do is evidence purpose and I will accept it.

We do things on purpose. We are purposeful beings. In fact we often substitute survival for purpose. Strange that.

 

[Loudmouth]

We do things on purpose. We are purposeful beings. In fact we often substitute survival for purpose. Strange that.

Where is the evidence for purpose in the evolution of life?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where is the evidence for purpose in the evolution of life?

It's an intuitive thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's an intuitive thing.

Where is the demonstrable evidence?

 

[The Cadet]

So it's intelligence based?

No? Why would that follow?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Science presents the evidence, I interpret it.

Yes. 1 Corinthians 2:15
The natural man assumes nothing is causing the waters to move, looks only for a naturalistic reason.
I like the word 'intuition' (you used) -- you obviously mean 'faith' i.e. Hebrews 11, correct?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes. 1 Corinthians 2:15
The natural man assumes nothing is causing the waters to move, looks only for a naturalistic reason.
I like the word 'intuition' (you used) -- you obviously mean 'faith' i.e. Hebrews 11, correct?

I mean intuition. Even before I 'got religion' I couldn't see how evolution was true.