Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

Evolutionists have physical evidence.You do not.And until you do, you're not going to convince any of us using solely your harsh words and ignorant bantering.

Hey, John, where'd you come up with the term "true science"?Did you make it up? I'm sure you did, because there isn't a single textbook in all the libraries of the world that would differentiate between evolution and "true science".If you want to make up terms and then say that your opposition cannot live up to them, then this is not the place for you. Try and stay within the boundaries of modern English.For example, true religion must always be able to live in harmony with evolutionary theory and science, and therefore, your christian fundamentalist views aren't truly religious. Why don't you admit that you're going to hell for not believing in a true God?

Your definition is not incorrect, it is simply your branding of it as "true science." Evolution fits all of your restrictions, yet you deem it as not "true science."If you don't believe me, look at any genetics journals, any modern college level, mind you, biology textbook involving the use of E. Coli, and for that matter, check out Jazzns' thread about the most recent evidence for evolution.Seriously, check it out.Also, even if you could thoroughly disprove evolution, although you can't, you still wouldn't convince us that God did it. Until you can prove that your Christian God in the Bible did it with your own "true science" with results that can be replicated time and time again, all you'll show us is that we're human and we don't understand everything there is to know about population biology. For all you know, speciation might be caused by some hitherto unknown mechanism much more complicated, yet still as rooted in modern science, as evolution.

That's like asking how your bones figured out how to be hard.DNA didn't figure anything out. It just works that way. Taken any cellular biology yet?

It's clear from the above statement that you don't know any molecular biology at all, and that you are not at all familiar with the role of DNA in biology. Before you come in with guns a blazing proclaiming these kinds of things, be sure you know your basic science first. But I'm not going to take the time to explain everything you don't understand, as made evident by your response, because most professors take at least a week of lectures to do it, and I wouldn't do them justice.I'd just end up confusing you more with terms like telomerase and reverse transcriptase.But do yourself a favor and watch this video on protein synthesis:http://youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLwwYou do know what proteins do in the body, right?

And until you can invoke God to create the Earth in 6 days and 7 nights and fill it with creatures time and time again, in front of your eyes, you must also conclude that your creationism is just shear speculation as well. After all, your definitions of "true science" also apply to you, my friend.

Again, I must ask you, can you show God creating the Earth over and over again? Can you prove that God did it and show us all over and over again in a laboratory him doing it?If you can't, your arguments fail by their own logic.Well, can ya'?

You continue to deflect. This is the third time I will ask, and if you don't answer, this entire board will know that you have conceded that your own views are not truly scientific and don't have a place in the classroom just as much as you claim evolution doesn't.Show us a laboratory experiment where God creates the Earth over and over again to make us believe that what you say is true science.If you cannot, you concede your point, and you lose this argument.Again, if you do not reply to this with a clear answer, this entire board will know that your views are made invalid by your own logic.

You seem to be taking things to an extreme.In no science can people show phenomena on such a large scale as evolution occuring from beginning to end. If you choose to disregard evolution as speculation on these grounds, then you might as well also trash plate tectonics, all of geology, and all of astronomy.

So basically what you're saying is that ID'ers look at the natural world, whether it be through archaeology, childbirth, etc., observe its huge complexity, use mathematics to calculate the improbability of the complexity and then claim that it's too complex to have evolved?That seems like the only tenet of ID science: too complex, so Goddidit.That's not very convincing, scientifically wise, to anyone except other ID'ers.If however, ID'ers could provide physical evidence of a creator God, analogous to ERVs for evolution, then perhaps you'd be getting somewhere. Otherwise, what you claim is science is, as John likes to say, "shear speculation", based off of a single principle: duh. I don't understand it..so..God must have done it!

Every response you give shows you more ridiculous than in the past. I asked you to prove that creationism was "true science" and belongs in the classroom, but like a little child, you continue to run away.It should be said; you repeating that evolution is not truly scientific will never make it so either.Did you watch that video on ERVs that bluegenes posted? If so, you have been introduced to one of the strongest cases for evolution ever presented. Other than that piece, there are thousands of other seperate evidences for evolution that would take hundreds of pages to compile and lay before your eyes. If you're really interested in this, pick up any college level textbook and read the chapters on population genetics and evolution. If you are too lazy to do this, then there is not much we can teach you. If we try to give you links to complicated websites, you'll come back with silly strawman arguments proving you didn't understand anything said, so the only way for you to truly understand what we are talking about is to pick up a textbook on your own.Also, you completely misunderstood what I said about plate tectonics, astronomy, and geology. What I said was that if you truly believe that evolution is not truly scientific, than you must also believe that those three former fields aren't either. If you truly do believe that the three former fields are not truly scientific, than you must be a lunatic with no sense of what science really is.If you are ready to argue with thousands of the world's smartest scientists, than you must have some familiarity with the topic at hand; it has become abundantly clear you don't. So, again, I will repeat, pick up a textbook or two and sit down for a few hours and read. You might understand what evolution really says and how many different lines of evidence have been revealed in support of it.On the other hand, there are absolutely no scientific pieces of evidence revealed in the support of intelligent design or creationism, but you continue to conveniently ignore that fact. You think that creationism belongs in schools, when, by your own logic, it should never even be mentioned in a classroom.

You claim to have been an engineer but you don't know what the scientific method is? Are you serious?The evolutionary model is a theory, and as such, explains the diversity of species we see today. There are a number of aspects of evolutionary theory: natural selection, population dynamics, genetics, etc. that together form a mechanism that explains how evolution works. By studying the constituents of this mechanism, which are taken to be separate at the beginning, scientists have uncovered a vast menagerie of evidences that show us that they are all connected, and together indeed form such a mechanism.Science seeks to uncover the mechanisms by which natural processes occur. We first come up with a model, like evolution by natural selection, and then try and discover what the mechanisms are that make it possible. We do so by observing evidences in the present like ERVs and fossils.Do you understand what science does? Science can never prove anything that happened in the past with a hundred percent accuracy, but rather seeks to uncover evidence that such things did happen in the past. Scientists have uncovered these kinds of evidences in the case of evolution, and all it takes is an open mind to understand them.You seem to be up in flames about evolution, but you don't realize that your own creationist views are not verifiable either. Did you see God creating the Earth from beginning to end? No? Then your views too, are wrong. At least the science of evolution has pieces of evidence, as described above.

Yes, you are right. retroviruses are essentially random in action. But, probability is a mathematical tool, as real as a wrench or a table. You can't escape probability. Have you ever heard of the Law of Large Numbers?The LLN states that after a sufficient number of sampling events, the probabilities of a certain event occurring as calculated using number theory turn out to be almost exact. If you flip a dice 2 times, you might not get one head and one tails, even though the probability of each happening is 1/2. But if you flip a dice 1000000 times, you will get approximately 500000 heads and 500000 tails. The error margin will become insignificant, as defined in statistical terms. The probability, as calculated by mathematics, turns out to be almost exactly matched by real world observations.Now, the behavior of ERVs predicts that the probability of all 16 retroviral events having exact homologies in chimps is extremely, extremely low; it is low enough to be essentially 0 in physical terms. Even with all the life forms in the universe, and the entire age of the universe, mathematically, even the law of large numbers would not predict there having to be that 1 case where all 16 incidents happened to be exactly matched in both humans and chimps by chance , and that chimps and humans are not related after all.This proves that the situation we see today, genomically, could not have occurred by chance, and that it must have occurred by some natural process. Again, God could not have just put it there to fool us because he cannot lie, as stated in the Bible itself (I don't know the exact quote, it's on this thread somewhere). This is why ERV behavior in chimps and humans is one of the strongest cases for evolution we can directly observe.Randomness does not only exist in the human mind. Unless the provisions of the law of large numbers is met, or not met, in the case of extremely small probabilities as opposed to extremely favorable ones, then the mathematics will predict almost exactly what we see in the real world.

Have you heard of the famous guppy incidence? It's given in almost every college level textbook known to man. This is what happened. There was a small lake in a part of Trinidad which contained a population of guppies, all of the same species. One year, there was a massive drought, and the pool was seperated into 2 seperate bodies of water, geographically separated from each other. Over the course of many years, scientists sampling guppies from each of the pools found that the guppies from one pond were considerably smaller and not able to mate or produce viable offspring with those from another pond, due to differences in predation in each of the pond. In an 11 year experiment run at the University of California, Santa Barbara, scientists proved that the guppies had changed morphology and mating behavior as a result of natural selection in the separate pools due to different predators in each pool.The fact that the two populations were not able to mate indicates that speciation had occurred. There you go, evolution as we all know it.

Viral DNA inserts itself into the genome by cleaving the DNA at whichever site it wants with restriction enzymes and then attaching itself in the middle using ligases. The viral DNA could attach itself anywhere. It is truly random. There are no predispositions, even chemically, that the DNA has when attaching to the host genome.So, no, it is absolutely a surprise, and the only good explanation is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor infected by this retrovirus.