6days
New member
Science doesn't tell us who the designer is, but evidence such as functionality and complex codes are evidence of a designer.So what is the creation explanation then? What common designer?6days said:Of course there is, just as there are evolutionist explanations.
Evolutionists assume Erv's are the result of common ancestry, mutations and natural selection.
Creationists assume Erv's are the result of a Common Designer, mutations and natural selection.
The functionality of Erv's is evidence. I think you understand that both evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence. (Same DNA, same mutations, the same fossils , the same universe etcetera).Evidence please.
Coming right up....soon as you present empirical evidence of a common ancestor.Did you watch the video? After you've presented empirical evidence for a common designer,
Actually... neither of us can provide empirical evidence of the past. We can perform science on things here today, then interpret data about the past.
No.. I haven't watched the video recently. I think I have seen it 3 times previously. Miller is good and entertaining but he draws conclusions bases on some false assumptions. Perhaps on the weekend I might have time to watch it again.
Clear and parsimonious? I consider it muddy and convoluted. If I get a chance this coming weekend I will ' critique' it for you. However, I don't expect to convince you of anything, because we both look at such things through our own biased perspective.please explain how it trumps common descent as a clear and parsimonious explanation as per the video provided. But if you don't like that video there's loads more
False and you are revealing just how biased your position is.Science journals. That would exclude anything with "creation" in the title6days said: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.
BTW
Are you referring to evolutionist journals, or creationist journals?
Journals are a private business that cater to a certain market. Creationist peer reviewed journals are highly unlikely to publish articles supporting ToE. Their subscribers would not be happy. Likewise with evolution based journals such as Nature, Both type of journals publish peer reviewed articles, written by PhD scientists.
Nope.. I don't accept that explanation. If that was what you meant, or thought, you should have said that. I will remind you again that you asked if Sanford had anything peer reviewed by the scientific community. Indeed he has... over 70 articles in secular journals on the topic of genetics. In addition, Sanford may have an article or two in creationist journals.You presented Sanford's view as an alternative to Ken Miller, who is a biology/evolution scientist so I naturally thought we were on the same page regarding the subject of peer reviewed science. Anyone can be reviewed in a different field but that doesn't give them credence regarding the subject at hand.6days said:When you are shown your assumptions are wrong, do you always try and cover with fallacy type arguments?
Moving the goal posts...you asked if Sanford had "anything peer reviewed by the science community".
The answer is yes... many times. So, play nice... admit Sanford understands genetics, and that he believes the evidence supports a young earth.
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.
As a geneticist, Sanford understands ToE just as well as Miller. In fact, Sanford was a committed evolutionist unit recent years.
Yeah... I think its sort of a meaningless term.But you're right about one thing. There is no such thing as Creation Science. My bad
Sort of like 'evolution science' would be a fuzzy meaningless definition.
We agree!Call me old fashioned but I believe only science should be taught in the science class. And religion in theology class.6days said:Science should be taught in the science classroom. Teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss the evidence no matter where it leads. They perhaps should even have the freedom to even discuss pros and cons of evolutionism. Right?