[_ Old Earth _] Natural Selection

[VaultZero4Me]

The point to ERVs is that they can be used to show common ancestry.

They are shared in way we would expect from evolution. If God inseted them, he did it in such a way to give strong evidence of common ancestry.

 

[John]

The point to ERVs is that they can be used to show common ancestry.

They are shared in way we would expect from evolution. If God inseted them, he did it in such a way to give strong evidence of common ancestry.

No, you just interpreted it wrong.

 

[jwu]

The point to ERVs is that they can be used to show common ancestry.

They are shared in way we would expect from evolution. If God inseted them, he did it in such a way to give strong evidence of common ancestry.

No, you just interpreted it wrong.

Well, then what is your interpretation?

 

[John]

I know your gonna laugh, but god designed it that way :wink:

 

[jwu]

I know your gonna laugh, but god designed it that way :wink:

Why would God fake residues of failed viral infections? Is God a deceiver that plants false evidence of evolution?

 

[John]

I know your gonna laugh, but god designed it that way :wink:

Why would God fake residues of failed viral infections? Is God a deceiver that plants false evidence of evolution?

nope like i said you just misinterpret the evidance to fit into your devious schemes

 

[jwu]

Then why did God design them that way? These sequences include everything that one would expect of a retroviral insertion, which we can observe going on these days. As previously mentioned, in one case the virus even was reconstructed from the genes.

 

[John]

Then why did God design them that way? These sequences include everything that one would expect of a retroviral insertion, which we can observe going on these days. As previously mentioned, in one case the virus even was reconstructed from the genes.

yes if i build a lego castle and smash it i can rebuild it as well.

nobody knows why does does certain things.

 

[jwu]

Then why did God design them that way? These sequences include everything that one would expect of a retroviral insertion, which we can observe going on these days. As previously mentioned, in one case the virus even was reconstructed from the genes.

yes if i build a lego castle and smash it i can rebuild it as well.

nobody knows why does does certain things.

Then it does count as evidence for the ToE, as the ToE has an extremely efficient and rigid explanation for this phenomenon, while creationism cannot offer anything similar.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I know your gonna laugh, but god designed it that way :wink:

Thats not an answer. Using your same logic I can say that the earth is flat. "But what about all of the other evidence?" -> "God designed it that way."

You are just pushing away all of the evidence so you can believe the way you want to believe.

 

[John]

I know your gonna laugh, but god designed it that way :wink:

Thats not an answer. Using your same logic I can say that the earth is flat. "But what about all of the other evidence?" -> "God designed it that way."

You are just pushing away all of the evidence so you can believe the way you want to believe.

2 sided sword m8

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I know your gonna laugh, but god designed it that way :wink:

Thats not an answer. Using your same logic I can say that the earth is flat. "But what about all of the other evidence?" -> "God designed it that way."

You are just pushing away all of the evidence so you can believe the way you want to believe.

2 sided sword m8

How so? I pointed out the ERVs for you. What am I pushing aside? Do you have some evidence to falsify ERVs and ToE? If you presented them I must of missed em.........

In fact I must have missed any part in which you displayed the any notion of any understanding of either.

 

[Jayls5]

yes but that is as far as it goes. adaptation (Micro) not evolution (Macro)

Now, as far as I understand it, isn't micro the same thing as macro?

Macro is just the "compounded effects" of microevolution, according to the wiki article.

I found this particularly interesting section on the wikipedia article for macroevolution.

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[5][6] Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science[7].

When discussing the topic, creationists use "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution.[1] Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being "just microevolution".[1]

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Jay: Now, as far as I understand it, isn't micro the same thing as macro?

Macro is just the "compounded effects" of microevolution, according to the wiki article.

I found this particularly interesting section on the wikipedia article for macroevolution.

Correct. The only school of thought in which the distinction is made for purposes other than frame of reference is in YEC views.

 

[Patashu]

Then why did God design them that way? These sequences include everything that one would expect of a retroviral insertion, which we can observe going on these days. As previously mentioned, in one case the virus even was reconstructed from the genes.

yes if i build a lego castle and smash it i can rebuild it as well.

nobody knows why does does certain things.

What you're effectively saying is that creationism can explain no phenomena or events since it cannot account for God's undefined behaviour.

Why should scientists then acknowledge creationism?