Why is it VERSUS?

Hi Andrew.For me, although evolution and biblical history are technically not mutually exclusive, the technicality bares no relevance to the war played out between certain groups with certain ideologies.I am a person that believes in Christ, believes in biblical history.The only reason to accept evolution would be to basically be accepted by fellow-thinkers.If you are creationist, and you believe in creation RATHER than evolution then you are ridiculed.But for me, I am born again as Christ says, and when that happens, and when you see what God can do, has done, and that personal confirmation of this belief is truly there, then why should I believe God evolved us instead of simply creating us as He said He did?That would be like saying; "I must believe in evolution because it it stupid to believe God actually can do powerful miracles, when science says that evolution happened."For me, that is a laughable position because if you believe in God, and put Him first in your life, He is willing to show you how He created the world so that it then becomes irrelevant as to how unbelieving men have blinded their hearts.It seems from your point of view, as an agnostic, that two groups of people should just get along, by compromising.
That is an admirable and kind gesture in that you see that there could be an agreement. But it is much, much more complicated that that.
Romans says that we are without excuse because the things that are visible are clearly created by that which is not visible.It is very clear and simple to understand design intellectually. I am guessing you have not read about design by scientists that believe in design rather than evolution?If you really are honest, you will admitt that when you see a bird fly, with such grace and ability, or when you move with autonomy, with complete ease, then you can see that these animals are not just a matter of atoms, but that they are wonderfully designed.No argument or theory can convince me that my eyes are not telling me the truth.Now the evolutionist can insult the creationist until the end of time but I personally will not be convinced that black is white, that the sky isn't blue that the trees are related to me, etc......call me what you want. Now I have 4000 odd posts. And probably about 3000 insults in response to my posts. And I don't need to ask why - it is simple, it is because if evolution is not true, then the atheists have no credence for their position and they will be held responsible for their sins. I can understand that, especially these days when people want to do what is right in their own hearts rather than some far-off God says.But the bible says the heart is desperately wicked above all things.If you actually look to the roots of evolution, you will see that the likes of Darwin and Lyell had ticker-problems when it came to God. Understanding W H Y the evolution theory came along is as important as realizing why it is accepted.You need to hear the other side of the story so that you can apreciate the possibity of design, rather than simply being scared by forum know-it-all bullies that only have an appearance of wisdom.Make your own path, don't let them decid for you. You are a special creation, a masterpiece, made in the image of God, and have eternal worth. I don't think you are far from God. You seem like an honest and decent person to me that is searching for truth. It is good that you are honest.All the best, od bless, kind regards, mike.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

It does not look like we evolved to me. If you have only ever accepted the evolution-paradigm and a strictly naturalistic worldview, then it looks that way. If you had never heard of evolution and dug up the fossils, you would say, "Hey - frogs have become frogs, hey look at this cambrian epoch, it's full of the major phyla we see today, hey, the same insects are found in amber, hey, we find all sorts of fossils of creatures that live today."And this is "evidence" it looks like we evolved? Nope, I am sorry but that is just not the case. I am afraid the rocks and fossils do not come with evolutionary name-tags, I am afraid those tags are put there by evolutionists. Perhaps generally, honestly, but it does not matter.Now It can only look like we evolved if you line up certain species and say it looks like we evolved. Sure it does, because you think that those similarities means that we evolved because you classified them that way, because afterall, we evolved. I'm afraid it's circular. I'm afraid proof-by ranking is tenuous, and bad logic. I am afraid the paradigm of evolution makes it seem RATIONAL that we evolved. You can certainly IMAGINE we did, if you look at the artwork of an ape slowly standing up and turning into a man, but the actual evidence? Sorry, it just doesn't look that way wether I am Christian, Budhist or Hindu. Sorry, just doesn't.Dawkins says it looks like we are designed. No - we are clearly designed, and a designer follows. I am afraid that there is only an imaginitive appearance of evolution because of the facts of adaptation, because God made organisms with contingencies in place, like a designer should do. The evidence-confirmations are tenuous. The evidence for stasus in fossils, a general fixity of forms, is more persuasive and general. Sure - they might be persuaded by that because of a focus on confirmation evidence, but confirmation evidence is astoundingly weak for very good logical reasons. Not my fault that you don't know why, I am not explaining it anymore on this forum.I do not claim that scientists were connvinced because of their beliefs, because scientists can be honest and sincere A N D wrong. But a look at the foundations will show you people that did not believe in the bible.Why is this such a big deal if scientific values do not dictate that I treat one theory as an absolute, anyway? Shouldn't you be happy I am being extremely cautious, and super-tentative, by not concluding evolution happened? Shouldn't evidence such as the Cambrian explosion have any weight as falsification evidence?The question has to be asked - why it is such a big deal if we chose a different interpretation of history that we believe shows a more accurate model?I feel I have divulged my opinions in this thread enough now, there is no reason why I should be singled out when the topic concerns reconciling evolution with creation. I am not addressing the same old people that have had chances to debate me in the past and couldn't handle it.All the best.

I agree there is design. Logically, a designer will follow where there is design.Sure - believe that designer is something natural, like an alien, that would atleast be a designer. I love the way nature designed those beautiful ferraris.Onifre, if nature can't create a knife and fork, or if you would not believe three rocks stacked on eachother happened because of nature, why on earth would you believe nature could create the rotary motor in the bacteria flagellum, or the chamber on the bombardier beetle or the aerodynamic brilliance of birds, with lungs that inhale/exhale simultaneously.You are asking me to believe that nature can win the world cup when it cannot even kick a football.Sorry - it is highly unconvincing reasoning, to me.Kind regards.

--No more responses or questions to mike the wiz please, please go back to the issue of the topic in question. --(I am not entertaining these request of me anymore like I did in the past. Soory - just not stupid enough to flog that horse.)

I am not that much at odds with your post. I have always held that creation isn't science, only deals with science in some manner.The truth, for me, is that evolution is a step too far and does not always bare relevance to science. I think evolution, as a theory, itself should not be taught, that the student can decide for themselves.Sure - teach the facts, natural selection, mutations, even speciation, but to then apply a common ancestor to humans is not factual, IMO.The facts can go no further than tracing all humanity to two individuals. Now if you can perform an experiment showing macro-evolution, as operational science, fair enough, but the students should be told that you do not have to infer molecules-to-man evolution simply because a bacteria can adapt. That is an assertion of belief in the powers of natural processes.For me, the issue of origins should be thrown out of science altogether. It is too contentious, not everybody is willing to accept the ToE, and scientists aren't always evolutionist.I think telling the students about design and creation, as an alternative, even if they are told in religious-class, is atleast an honest pursuit.Kind regards.

I will read all of the link tomorrow.The thing is, I am not mentioning what I know through my own findings. There are fallacious assumptions behind origins that involve the God of the gaps fallacy, and parsimony.The truth is that there is no "proof", in this sense. Any paper you can produce will have a set of inferences that will not necessarily lead to a sound inference and a solid syllogism.For my own complicated reasons, not what people have told me, I do not agree with inferences pertaining to macro-evolution and DNA, which I knew you would mention because of things like pseudo genes, and correlations between chimps etc... does not strike us as solid reasoning.Thanks. (I will read the paper to the best of my ability, but the point is it doesn't matter if, all of the scientists say it is proven, I do not believe a person is obliged to agree with that conclusion because scientific values give me the right to not agree with WHATEVER your claim or conclusion is, no matter how absolutely solid it is, and however utterly understood by top scientists.)

Can you now, in the opening line, see the first mistake, from the point of view of a logical evaluation?"the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage"That is a conclusion right there. So first of all, not an encouraging opener. Secondly, I can tell you I have read about HERVs before, and the other potential explanations given in places such as AIG.

Edit; I have read more sources, I was rusty concerning junk DNA.Logically there is only one way to "prove" macro-evolution, and that is to show a new morphological structure under operational science, such as an experiment with fruit flies or bacteria.For logical reasons you SHOULD know of, direct proof is that an organism that should be able to evolve, because of rapid-reproduction, should be shown to have new morphologies leading to a new form of life.That's pretty much my opinion, the ERVs and HERVs do not strike me as anything other than a potential correlation that would support phylogentics. i.e Logically although a common ancestor would answer the problem, it is clear that a common designer could also, especially since there has been ignorance about ERVs in that they do actually have function. It is not always clear as to why a designer would place them there, but I suspect vestigial organs or pseudogenes to be prematurely judged as useless leftovers of evolution.In short, very far from proof, but evidence that does favour an evolutionary lineage, to a degree.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You say that after four consecutive rants at me. Please Dr Inadequate - just get over me already.

I admitt my arguments are tortured, because I lack knowledge in this area. That's because they aren't arguments, I only gave uninformed opinions of a subject I don't know enough of the science of. The truth is, I have perhaps shown a picture that doesn't fully show the truth about my own personal position.My own position, at this stage, is that I do not have a conclusion. Those posts are my opinions WITHOUT really understanding your paper.You see, I am a reasoning person. I have not simply said in my mind; "this is a common designer end of".Infact the prevailing thoughts in my mind after reading your paper is that if I have understood correctly, there is a chance that your evidence is good evidence however, at this stage I have not really BEGUN to delve into this.So I apologise if I frustrated you, it might seem like I am parrotting AIG, but I am just giving an alternative opinion.For my mind, personally, just as mike, I will need to understand more about this, therefore technically, although I can seem to have made up my mind, logically, I have not - at best I have read some of your paper, read a few other things on the web and really I need to hear an intelligible summary of your paper.So - personally, you can be assured I will not just, in my own mind - jump to "Goddidit". It is actually my apriori opinions based on informations NOT to do with this subject that make me believe in a designer. (Things I have read and assessed properly.)

My own thoughts were that if the ERVs have the same neucleotide sequences in a chimp and a human's host DNA or RNA (forgive my ignorance in the particulars of biology), then if these host chimp DNA had 100% match with the human, then you can soundly deduce a common ancestor. (If that is a fact then I accept it as for me, it is not possible to reject fact, as I have always admitted.)You see, I was thinking - when these viruses take over, do they preserve the neucleotide sequences?I admitt if a chimp and human match 100% DNA, then that is a strong argument for a common ancestor. BUT since I don't know the particulars of biology (like lots of evo here, dr inadequate) then I really need Taq to tell me if I am way off here.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Thanks, I was going to ask about that be he might make a topic about it.If the same ERVs were found, where there is no evolutionary divergence, then logically that would count as a falsifying evidence that there is necessarily a common ancestor.

You're making it look like I came along and said; "right, I propose that ERVs are a load of BS."I believe, that from what I have read thus far, that the ERVs would count as confirmation evidence of evolution. Did you skip that bit or something? But the ERVs are factual, the evolutionary claims are claims.What I don't agree with it that they are direct proof of macro-evolution because logically, there could be other possible explanations, some of which I doubt I have read, but even if they are unfound, they are possible. I feel comfortable saying it is not factual, because I do not regard convoluted explanations of experiments to show direct proof. Direct proof is almost always as obvious as a smack on the face.Example; I must have a father or had father-genes or I would not exist.BUT, I can't debate this. It is my preliminary conclusion that ERVs support evolution, in that they show a correlation.But as for the analogy of the fingerprint, I have no idea as to whether that analogy can be equated to these ERVs.Really, because I don't know about the specific topic, I have no intention of debating something I know too little about. It's no good picking someone who is weak in the area of the topic and saying, "haha, you got hammered." That is like walking up to a five year old and saying, "You got tortured by me in a fight."Ofcourse he did, as you could not expect a lightweight to defeat a heavyweight but logically, does beating him prove you are the champion of heavyweights?I freely admitt lack of knowledge of the particular subject.The confidence of saying common ancestry is not a fact is that there is never any concrete, hyper-deductive sound syllogism that proves it.A fact doesn't require proof. Yet these complex arguments seem to need a lot of explaining, and proving.A much easier way to prove macro evolution is to first prove that it can happen, of which I don't see an added mutation creating a new morphology.Think of it likes this. Let's say I collect artwork. Let's say the style of the artwork is the same but I have no signature.You are saying that the artwork came from the same source, because the style is the same. But does that mean that is ABSOLUTELY MUST have come from the same artist?If you are stating that ERVs are a confirmation evidence, fair enough, I have concede that.If you are stating that they prove macro-evolution absolutely is responsible, then I think you are stepping away from science.
I don't know the specific biology, but I know the rules of logic, and as far as I can see, ERV's could have came from commone descent, or ERVS could have came from exogenous retro-viruses, as some creation articles have said. Proof of macro-evolution is akin to an absolute.Now a true extrapolation, logically, of a blind "fact", is that it is a fact I have a great grandfather or I wouldn't exist.With macro-evolution, you are saying ERVs MUST, and ONLY CAN show common descent NO MATTER WHAT. (Dogma).In my logical opinion, that is a non sequitur. Just because the real facts of such genes are inexplicable to me at this time does not mean evolution is true. Just because I am a five year old doesn't make you the heavyweight champion of champions.You are PICKING A fight with someone that freely admitts he does not enter war without weapons. I am not a qualified debater of biology so I don't debate it, I can only help you with the logic behind the claims.I hold out my hand to the referee, the round is over, and you come and hit me like it proves something, by snipping the quote I made.Dishonest tactics, there Taq.

You misunderstand. You can use the term fact or proof but that in itself is useless because of the rules of science. The problem is it does not make common ancestry a fact.A fact, to me, is something clear. ERVs are facts. DNA is factual. We all have the same facts.But to state all organisms came from a common ancestor in and of itself is a very LARGE claim.You cannot logically conflate a claim with a fact. That is not scientific.You are correct that ERVs point to common ancestry as support of evolution, but look at the following logic; antecedant)IF evolution is true THEN(consequent) these ERVs should be present in the same loci in humans and chimps, in the genome. (PONEN)

​

Science says.

​

Affirmation = confirmation evidence ONLY (tentative induction build-up)
Tollens = falsification.You see, this evidence for evolution, though it should follow, does not prove that if X is Y then Y = X.The extrapolation lends weight to the ToE, at best.Affirmation of evolution does not mean that evolution is a fact.The phylogenetic tree, is not operational science in that it is gone. You can't experiment as to whether a chimp diverged from a human, you can only tentatively affirm the consequent.But if I have a theory that holds that all birds are red, then I could find 500 consecutive red birds, that will all affirm the consequent of my hypothesis. But will this prove all birds are red? No, because I only need O N E differently coloured bird to falsify the hypothesis.

Taq, your hypothesis might, (as you claim) show "fingerprints" of evolution and I have agreed that this is the kind of evidence that should follow.Now, the problem here is that you are conflating a general claim with a specific claim.The general claim is that all lifeforms are a result of a lineage from an original common ancestor through M +NS. (direct proof is an operational experiment showing nature has this power.)The claim of ERVs is that these show a fingerprint of such an ancestry.In the same way, DNA shows code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics showing information. All of the designs of organisms are extraordinary beyond belief in that they fingerprint a creative hand. This can be shown by looking at specific design-contingencies, such as the structure of a giraffe's brain in regard to fainting, or drowning in it's blood. The aerodynamics of birds, etc....I won't go into it all.So to me, if your ERVs trump the absolutely astonishing design in nature, then that is not logical.The ERV claim is that there is an evolutionary fingerprint. This does not mean common ancestry is true, because first it must be proven that the general claim is true - that such designs can come about, by added mutations, random sampling errors, and selection, against the extraordinary factual weight of design-contingencies in organisms.Sorry, but the CLAIM of a common ancestor is not fact. There might even be finger prints of an evolution, seemingly. Perhaps in this way there is an appearance of evolution but it is not enough to "prove" the general claim or say that the general claim is "fact", it only proves there is a fingerprint which you can either take as explicable or inexplicable, depending on how you see it in regards to all of the other claims and evidences and subjects in question. Hmmm. Funny, that won't make my logic wrong though will it.If the five year old can't punch that doesn't mean he won't bite. You see, I admitted ignorance of ERVs but you perhaps jumped to the conclusion that this means that I am completely useless or omni-ignorant.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.