Jump to content


Photo

Why Evolutionist Don't Like To Give Evidence?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
34 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:57 AM

I find it quite frustrating and amusing that for all their talk about science, many evolutionists refuse to give evidence of their claims.

Many seem to think that just by merely saying the word fossil makes it evidence of evolution, without actually demonstrating how it is...


So calling all evolutionists to give a summary of how their "evidence" is evidence of evolution.

Just one stipulation, since this is a broad topic, we shall only discuss two issues at a time, and move onto the next one when one is dealt with.

#2 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:33 AM

I find it quite frustrating and amusing that for all their talk about science, many evolutionists refuse to give evidence of their claims.

Many seem to think that just by merely saying the word fossil makes it evidence of evolution, without actually demonstrating how it is...


So calling all evolutionists to give a summary of how their "evidence" is evidence of evolution.

Just one stipulation, since this is a broad topic, we shall only discuss two issues at a time, and move onto the next one when one is dealt with.

Just to get the boundaries straight, I have a question or two.

Is it the plan of this thread to discuss all the evidence that most scientists agree is in support of evolution, or are we discussing the nature of evidence and how evidence is used to support or refute any particular statement or theory.

How broad is each issue? Is the subject of endogenous retroviruses as evidence for evolution too broad?

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:52 AM

Just to get the boundaries straight, I have a question or two.

Is it the plan of this thread to discuss all the evidence that most scientists agree is in support of evolution, or are we discussing the nature of evidence and how evidence is used to support or refute any particular statement or theory.

How broad is each issue? Is the subject of endogenous retroviruses as evidence for evolution too broad?


Preferably discuss the nature of evidence and how it actually supports evolution, it just seems to me that alot of the time, evidence is flung about without regard to how it actually supports the premiss of evolution.

ERVs are fair game, and something that is relatively new to me, so I'm going to enjoy reading up about them.

#4 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:46 PM

"Evolutionists" don't like to give evidence because creationists demand to see it, refuse to look at it when it's presented to them, and when called on their refusal to look at it say "you can't prove I didn't click that link I refused to click!" and make threads like this one repeating the completely false claim that no evidence exists or that atheists can't provide it.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 03:51 PM

"Evolutionists" don't like to give evidence because creationists demand to see it, refuse to look at it when it's presented to them, and when called on their refusal to look at it say "you can't prove I didn't click that link I refused to click!" and make threads like this one repeating the completely false claim that no evidence exists or that atheists can't provide it.


Slanderous sweeping claim... (you asked me to point them out to you)

I wrote an entire post reponding to your post, which you in turn only responded to one sentence.... Now look who is refusing to see evidence..

However I won't let you derail this thread.




So can an evolutionist please post up evidence of evolution and actually demonstrate how this is evidence that supports evolution, again I ask that merely stating "fossils" or something to that effect is not enough (despite some who feel that their words create truth), you need to demonstrate how it is evidence, (preferably within the scientific method).

#6 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:08 PM

Why in the world should I take 20 minutes to write out a huge long response to someone who demands evidence and refuses to look at it?

You've spent a great deal of time and energy justifying over multiple threads your refusal to watch two videos less than 3 and a half minutes long which contain descriptions from an actual well respected expert with an actual PhD who testified about evolution in the dover trial of experimental predictions that had the potential to disprove evolution entirely if they were wrong but ended up being 100% right, ie actual empirical, scientific tests of the theory - and you not only refuse to look at them but make post after post mocking "evolutionists" for their failure to provide that specific type of evidence.

And you now act like I'm crazy for not leaping to respond to your magnificent comments. Why would I waste my time?

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:04 PM

Why in the world should I take 20 minutes to write out a huge long response to someone who demands evidence and refuses to look at it?

You've spent a great deal of time and energy justifying over multiple threads your refusal to watch two videos less than 3 and a half minutes long which contain descriptions from an actual well respected expert with an actual PhD who testified about evolution in the dover trial of experimental predictions that had the potential to disprove evolution entirely if they were wrong but ended up being 100% right, ie actual empirical, scientific tests of the theory - and you not only refuse to look at them but make post after post mocking "evolutionists" for their failure to provide that specific type of evidence.

And you now act like I'm crazy for not leaping to respond to your magnificent comments. Why would I waste my time?


I have watched them! I never said I didn't!

Therefore this rant you've made all thoughout the forum is based on your own inability to comprehend what I said. I said that I prefered YOU to post words rather than just a video since it holds you accountable, I've had it happen in the past when evolutionists post videos, I go to the time and effort to debunk said video and then the evolutionist back away claiming they never said what was on the video...

Only after you have stated a claim would I then proceed to dismantle the arguments, since the claim you'd make would ground you to the argument meaning you cannot back out of it.

Additionally I responded to 18 other points in the same post, so if responding to 18 points is not discussing the evidence then I don't know what is.

Ergo your comments here are a waste of time and an attempt to sideline the issue of YOU providing evidence and DEMONSTRATING how this evidence is actual evidence for evolution.

If you refuse to do so, then I'd be forced to assume that you have no actual evidence to discuss since you continually refuse to share it.
  • Bonedigger likes this

#8 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:09 PM

"I have watched them! I never said I didn't!"

You refused to watch it, said why you didn't want to, didn't reply to either and then finally wrote a long dissertation attacking a different ken miller video that had nothing to do with the clips I gave you.

You are a liar and a troll and I am only replying to your nonsense because you intend to slander me in every single thread on this forum.

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

I'm not going to derail this thread. But put simply if you think I'm so wrong, just state the evidence its simple enough... If I ignore it here in my own thread then that is good evidence that I do ignore it if I don't ignore it here then that debunks your claims..

So enough of the red herrings and useless chatter, step up to the plate and present your arguments, with any supporting media you wish, (not JUST videos, as you need to give the required context).

Do this if you dare, failure to do so will be taken as failure to produce evidence on your behalf.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:13 PM

"I have watched them! I never said I didn't!"

You refused to watch it, said why you didn't want to, didn't reply to either and then finally wrote a long dissertation attacking a different ken miller video that had nothing to do with the clips I gave you.

You are a liar and a troll and I am only replying to your nonsense because you intend to slander me in every single thread on this forum.


Where in this statement does it say that I refused to watch the videos?

"I don't care about the youtube videos I am discussing this with you, not him."

http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=86756

Saying I don't care about something doesn't mean I haven't seen it. What I did care about was YOUR INPUT not you piggy-backing off of someone elses logic and then when that logic proves false you can say that it wasn't you who made the claim.

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:52 AM

Bump.... For atheist responses.

Just keep in mind that merely claiming "fossils" or "natural selection" or "phylogeny" is not enough. You need to EXPLAIN why this is good evidence of evolution, and DEMONSTRATE within the scientific method how this evidence is scientific.

I have yet to see ANY evolutionist do so, (despite what some may claim, they can merely state "DNA" etc however none have bothered to explain it to this detail before).

I am asking them to really think about the evidence, to weigh it up, see whether its logically coherent and then post about it.

#12 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:29 AM

"Just keep in mind that merely claiming "fossils" or "natural selection" or "phylogeny" is not enough. You need to EXPLAIN why this is good evidence of evolution, and DEMONSTRATE within the scientific method how this evidence is scientific."

I not only did this at great length when I first came to this board (giving a very long, detailed explanation of how and why archeopteryx was important evidence for evolution), I then made an entire thread about how my explanation and other evidence was ignored which specifically named you.

You still pretend none of it ever happened.

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:42 PM

"Just keep in mind that merely claiming "fossils" or "natural selection" or "phylogeny" is not enough. You need to EXPLAIN why this is good evidence of evolution, and DEMONSTRATE within the scientific method how this evidence is scientific."

I not only did this at great length when I first came to this board (giving a very long, detailed explanation of how and why archeopteryx was important evidence for evolution), I then made an entire thread about how my explanation and other evidence was ignored which specifically named you.

You still pretend none of it ever happened.


Where?

Perhaps provide a link as I may have missed that particular one... (Is this discussing the videos you claimed I never watched, when I did, just that you never explained what about the videos was your argument.... Since these videos do not discuss archeopteryx... have you now moved onto some other imperfection?). However I have responded to every single post I have seen sent by you, and in that post with the videos I responded to 18 of the 19 points....

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:42 PM

So any takers?

Care to demonstrate HOW, for example, similar fossils are evidence of evolution?

#15 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:53 PM

I think this is what we (creationists) have been after all along. The atheists/evolutionists will constantly post what is observed, what is thought, what is general consensus, but they have no experimental data to back it up. Yes, we find fossils, 1000s of them. We find ones that are slightly different than others. How does that prove evolution? Where is the data that PROVES that animal 'A' turned into animal 'B'? What kind of test was done to verify this? If this has occurred, please share as I would love to read and see them.

The fossil thing is just one example of course. What experimental data do we have for the big bang? Since there is no God, the big bang is the best evolutionary theory, right? ....

Now before I or other creationists on this board are attacked, I will reiterate that creation is a theory as well. However, It's not touted as fact as we all know we can't scientifically prove there is a God, how He created, etc.

But this is why creationists get upset. Evolution is the mainstream. There is no mention of God or intelligent design in schools. From elementary school through college, all we hear is the theory of evolution, how it is fact and how it is proven. If evolution is challenged, we are idiots, ignorant, etc. Yet the questions we ask are critical. Why? Well, either creation or evolution is the 'right' one. If evolution is right, I have nothing to lose when I leave this earth. However, if we creationists are right, those that don't believe, have absolutely everything to lose.

I don't want to derail this topic by my above statement, I just wanted to state why Christians feel the need to spread the Word.

Back to the topic... What theory is more probable? Creation teaches biogenesis. It is observed, it is tested, it is proven. Eyewitness accounts firmly attest to a biblical creation. Living (virtually unchanged from supposedly millions of years ago) fossils are in the 100s if not 1000s. Tests are done on various things throughout the world that refute evolution (1000s of years vs millions) The complexity of cells, DNA, organs, the human body, how it functions, the marvels of this planet, and the 100s of 1000s of amazing creatures in this world of ours cry out 'God' amd the splendor of His creation.

Evolution is the opposite. There is no explanation how 'something' came from 'nothing' and that 'nothing' somehow did 'something' (i.e. explode) and 15 billion years later, here I am sitting behind my keyboard typing on this thread. Evolution will state the order of the universe and everything in it came to be because evolution 'knew' it had to. The complexity of animals, humans, nature, etc. are adaption and instinct, yet evolution doesn't explain 'how' this happened WITH empirical, experimental evidence to back it up. Yet it is spoken as truth and those that challenge it are fools.

Atheists will say the Bible is a book full of contradictions because we can Google it and read them so we can believe that. Let's not bother to just read the book at face value. If something is confusing, it must be an error or contradiction or something but it certainly can't be the Word of God! Let's not seek out the truth and continue to believe we have no ultimate purpose on this earth, because when we die, that's it, game over, right?

Where is the evidence for evolution? Not the observation, not when we can plainly see with our own eyes, but where is the experimental data that shows the eye evolved? The experimental data that shows we are related to apes? Oh yeah, I debunked that on another thread already, see http://evolutionfair...showtopic=5278

I patiently wait to see your responses.

I pray everyone here that doubts God and his word truly takes time to reflect and to think of these things concerning evolution and your life on this earth. Ask yourself how much time have you dedicated to God and understanding Him? How much time have you devoted to reading and understanding the Bible? How certain are you that evolution is 100% accurate and that there is no God? Even if you are 99.9% certain, that .1 percent should drive you to seek out, "What is holding me back?" "What have I got to lose by really looking into this creation/God theory?"

On a side note, a Happy early Thanksgiving to everyone on this board! God has truly blest me, my famly, and friends. I am greatful for everything I have in this world and I know I wouldn't be who I am today without my faith in Christ. Cheers to all of you, have a safe and blessed Thanksgiving!

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:06 PM

I think this is what we (creationists) have been after all along. The atheists/evolutionists will constantly post what is observed, what is thought, what is general consensus, but they have no experimental data to back it up. Yes, we find fossils, 1000s of them. We find ones that are slightly different than others. How does that prove evolution? Where is the data that PROVES that animal 'A' turned into animal 'B'? What kind of test was done to verify this? If this has occurred, please share as I would love to read and see them.

The fossil thing is just one example of course. What experimental data do we have for the big bang? Since there is no God, the big bang is the best evolutionary theory, right? ....

Now before I or other creationists on this board are attacked, I will reiterate that creation is a theory as well. However, It's not touted as fact as we all know we can't scientifically prove there is a God, how He created, etc.

But this is why creationists get upset. Evolution is the mainstream. There is no mention of God or intelligent design in schools. From elementary school through college, all we hear is the theory of evolution, how it is fact and how it is proven. If evolution is challenged, we are idiots, ignorant, etc. Yet the questions we ask are critical. Why? Well, either creation or evolution is the 'right' one. If evolution is right, I have nothing to lose when I leave this earth. However, if we creationists are right, those that don't believe, have absolutely everything to lose.

I don't want to derail this topic by my above statement, I just wanted to state why Christians feel the need to spread the Word.

Back to the topic... What theory is more probable? Creation teaches biogenesis. It is observed, it is tested, it is proven. Eyewitness accounts firmly attest to a biblical creation. Living (virtually unchanged from supposedly millions of years ago) fossils are in the 100s if not 1000s. Tests are done on various things throughout the world that refute evolution (1000s of years vs millions) The complexity of cells, DNA, organs, the human body, how it functions, the marvels of this planet, and the 100s of 1000s of amazing creatures in this world of ours cry out 'God' amd the splendor of His creation.

Evolution is the opposite. There is no explanation how 'something' came from 'nothing' and that 'nothing' somehow did 'something' (i.e. explode) and 15 billion years later, here I am sitting behind my keyboard typing on this thread. Evolution will state the order of the universe and everything in it came to be because evolution 'knew' it had to. The complexity of animals, humans, nature, etc. are adaption and instinct, yet evolution doesn't explain 'how' this happened WITH empirical, experimental evidence to back it up. Yet it is spoken as truth and those that challenge it are fools.

Atheists will say the Bible is a book full of contradictions because we can Google it and read them so we can believe that. Let's not bother to just read the book at face value. If something is confusing, it must be an error or contradiction or something but it certainly can't be the Word of God! Let's not seek out the truth and continue to believe we have no ultimate purpose on this earth, because when we die, that's it, game over, right?

Where is the evidence for evolution? Not the observation, not when we can plainly see with our own eyes, but where is the experimental data that shows the eye evolved? The experimental data that shows we are related to apes? Oh yeah, I debunked that on another thread already, see http://evolutionfair...showtopic=5278

I patiently wait to see your responses.

I pray everyone here that doubts God and his word truly takes time to reflect and to think of these things concerning evolution and your life on this earth. Ask yourself how much time have you dedicated to God and understanding Him? How much time have you devoted to reading and understanding the Bible? How certain are you that evolution is 100% accurate and that there is no God? Even if you are 99.9% certain, that .1 percent should drive you to seek out, "What is holding me back?" "What have I got to lose by really looking into this creation/God theory?"

On a side note, a Happy early Thanksgiving to everyone on this board! God has truly blest me, my famly, and friends. I am greatful for everything I have in this world and I know I wouldn't be who I am today without my faith in Christ. Cheers to all of you, have a safe and blessed Thanksgiving!


This is what I am trying to tease out, either the evolutionist will provide some form of confirmatory experiment and a dialogue can be created on it, or they will come to the realisation that what is purported by the media and in the classrooms is simply biased opinion. From this realisation they now have the freedom to make up their own minds rather than blindly cling to what people tell them to think.

Technically neither is a theory since neither has experimental data to back them up, they are more like proposed models based on the hypothesis of God or the hypothesis of evolution.

Creationists do claim that God is a fact, however is taken on faith, much different to evolutionists who claim evolution is a fact based on the scientific evidence.

#17 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:01 PM

I find it quite frustrating and amusing that for all their talk about science, many evolutionists refuse to give evidence of their claims. Many seem to think that just by merely saying the word fossil makes it evidence of evolution, without actually demonstrating how it is... So calling all evolutionists to give a summary of how their "evidence" is evidence of evolution. Just one stipulation, since this is a broad topic, we shall only discuss two issues at a time, and move onto the next one when one is dealt with.


We have about 200,000 endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) and share almost all of them with chimpanzees. We have specifically identified dozens of ERVs we share all ready.

http://www.evolution...el.com/ervs.htm

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:15 PM

We have about 200,000 endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) and share almost all of them with chimpanzees. We have specifically identified dozens of ERVs we share all ready.

http://www.evolution...el.com/ervs.htm


Could you tell me how ERVs are evidence of evolution, all I see is am observation with an assumption added.

#19 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:53 PM

Could you tell me how ERVs are evidence of evolution, all I see is am observation with an assumption added.


I apologize. Sometimes I am too terse when debating. Since ERVs are inserted by viruses and these sequences are all different, and they get inserted into different places we can test the theory of evolution. If creationism is true, each kind was independently created. Viruses insert ERVs into hosts in these two lines independently and these genes spread through the populations. If creationism is true, it is highly unlikely that we should find othogonal ERVs between two kinds because ERVs were inserted independently. ERVs are othogonal if they are at the same or nearly same locus, and have the same or nearly same genetic sequence. However we know humans and chimpanzees share 200,000 ERVs. This makes independent creation of humans and apes highly unlikely. It does make sense if humans and apes had a recent common ancestor.

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:35 PM

1. I apologize. Sometimes I am too terse when debating.

2. Since ERVs are inserted by viruses and these sequences are all different, and they get inserted into different places we can test the theory of evolution.

3. If creationism is true, each kind was independently created. Viruses insert ERVs into hosts in these two lines independently and these genes spread through the populations.

4. If creationism is true, it is highly unlikely that we should find othogonal ERVs between two kinds because ERVs were inserted independently.

5. ERVs are othogonal if they are at the same or nearly same locus, and have the same or nearly same genetic sequence. However we know humans and chimpanzees share 200,000 ERVs.

6. This makes independent creation of humans and apes highly unlikely. It does make sense if humans and apes had a recent common ancestor.


1. No need to apologise I know what they are, just asking you to consider how they are evidence, (see below)

2. Actually you can't, since you're merely assuming that evolution is the only cause that could cause such... There could be some unknown reason that could never have been fathomed, ergo why I ask the evolutionists for experimentation supporting their assumption of "evolution did it" because in most (if not all) cases such a claim cannot be made logically without supporting evidence to verify the proposed cause as the only cause.

Since its a proposed historical event, such experimentation cannot be performed thus its merely claimed on faith.

3. Not necessarily. That is an assumption, firstly its assumed that these sequences are derived from viruses (because they are similar) and thus have no function. I am sure you know about the "junk DNA" claim made a while ago which puts doubt into the evolutionist's use of such assumptions. I'd say study it more and prove the claim before its made. Additionally there is no stipulation on Creationism that these MUST be different, this comes from the assumption that they are due to viruses however as far as I know ERVs haven't been demonstrated to infect germline cells, only somatic cells. Therefore this is a huge assumption.

4. Again this is the assumption that they were from viruses, first prove the claim then you can state it with confidence :)/>

5. And?

6. Why doesn't it make sense?



Now if ERVs were inserted from viruses then we should find that none of these sequences should have any form of function since the viral RNA / DNA (because of reverse transcriptase) would not have a use for the organism.

Additionally since the organism / ancestor was assumed to at one stage to not contain these ERVs then it must have been able to survive without the ERVs. Thus if evolution is true then no ERV sequence can contain a critical code required by the organism to survive.. Since if there is something critical about the ERVs ( and considering how its conserved I assume there is) then how can we postulate organisms that somehow survived without this necessary function, before it was inserted via the virus?
  • Salsa likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users