Of course there is, just as there are evolutionist explanations.
I think you meant "naturalistic" explanations, rather than "evolutionist".
Biological evolution is the result of the attempt to find a naturalistic explanation for the biodiversity throughout the history of this earth.
Evolutionists assume Erv's are the result of common ancestry, mutations and natural selection.
Wrong.
Science assumes that there are naturalistic explanations. Otherwise it would be useless. Science admits its limitations in the foundational presuppositions that are needed for any philosophy to get off square one. Science/natural philosophy is confined to only being capable of investigating explanations that are within the scope of empirical verification.
Natural selection and genetic variation are the observed realities in regard to the biodiversity we see. Extrapolating that to encompass past events and therefore the logical conclusion of common ancestry is the most likely alternative given all the empirical evidence we have.
Creationists assume Erv's are the result of a Common Designer, mutations and natural selection.
Right, and this is exactly where YECs such as yourself try to sneak your interpretation of Genesis into the science classroom as a newly added foundational presupposition meant to replace the standard foundational presuppositions currently used in science.
And this is why you are only fooling yourself by trying to garner some credibility for your screwed up view of the world by attempting to label that "science". Most reasonable people can see right through the subterfuge you try to substitute for the clear straightforward logic of the scientific method.
Hmmmm.....I have seen people like that!! They make philosophical /materialistic assumptions (which cant be disproved) about things such as Erv's, and then call it science.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You make that abundantly clear in your attempt to sound knowledgeable about this.
Science is a philosophy, albeit a much more limiting one than theology. Theology, especially your specific brand, is like playing tennis without a net. You set up a model in which you never have to verify your claims with empirical evidence. You are not fooling anyone in your attempt to turn that around and blame science (its foundational presuppositions) for making evolution unfalsifiable. The current model of evolution is falsifiable. What you really need to falsify, if you want people to accept your argument, is the established scientific method throughout all of science. Or you need to explain why biology should be the only exception. And one of these will most likely be your next diversionary strategy.
Correct, sort of...it is no problem finding peer reviewed scientific articles in scientific journals by PhD scientists poking holes in ToE. The theory itself is not falsifiable though. It is like a fog that covers all landscapes.
The current theory of biodiversity is falsifiable. All you would need to falsify it would be to find a fossilized bunny rabbit in the pre-Cambrian geological strata. Or you could falsify the principle of "reproductive advantage" and/or "genetic variation". If you did one of those you would falsify the current model.
But what really ticks you off is that even after they were to discard that model, they would probably look for another naturalistic explanation as a model.
BTW
Are you referring to evolutionist journals, or creationist journals?
Please, could you share with us, where it is that they publish creationist journals?
When you are shown your assumptions are wrong, do you always try and cover with fallacy type arguments?
You are the fraud here. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are in way over your head on these subjects. Yet you pretend to have a grasp of this material.
Which assumptions are you claiming to be wrong (this should be real good)?
Moving the goal posts...you asked if Sanford had "anything peer reviewed by the science community".
Creationism is not science. It is a specific brand of religion, which some less than honest and somewhat cowardly people, are trying to push as science. You have to give them credit for fooling dolts like you though. I mean that must be a real accomplishment. :rotfl:
The answer is yes... many times. So, play nice... admit Sanford understands genetics, and that he believes the evidence supports a young earth.
You just don't understand, do you? A person can certainly understand some aspects of modern population genetics, yet refuse to accept the other evidence which overwhelmingly supports an old earth model.
After you admit a field goal was scored, not a touchdown; and if you have other questions, or want to discuss "Creation science" ( whatever that is) we can.
:rotfl:
You don't discuss things using evidence, logic and reason. You try to use parlor tricks, and emotional manipulation to fool people into just agreeing with you. I can already see that from your chosen strategy.
What is creation science?
An oxymoron.
Science should be taught in the science classroom.
Exactly.
Teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss the evidence no matter where it leads.
They most certainly already do. They do freely discuss where the evidence leads. They are not forced to use your specific brand of theology/YECism as a newly added foundational assumption of science. So as a result their research does not support your whacked out view of reality.
I think that is what really bothers you the most. That since your theological view cannot be forced on others, it ultimately gets rejected. Yet you personally are too stupid to understand why.
They perhaps should even have the freedom to even discuss pros and cons of evolutionism. Right?
Pros and Cons? :think:
You mean like they do in a political debate about the negative or positive results of change/no change in political policy?
Is that really how you think science works?