95894

-"You've failed once again to provide an alternative explanation to the phylogeny observed."

No, I have offered an alternative explanation that is not bound by evolutionary "theory".

- "Unless you can do this, then any objection you might have to evolution is worthless."

I never said that I had an "objection" to evolution (I have stated that adaptation would be a better term); just that the truth is somewhere between evolution and creation... whether "God" orchestrated or the creation through chance under the right conditions.

-"For it to have any weight, your altenative model not only has to explain all the evidence available but also make predictions which can be tested."

To be tested, a scientist would have to go against the status quo, and we all know what happens to such a scientist... no one is likely to be so bold and revolutionary. This, by design perhaps in some\many respects, keeps people dumb. Much easier to accept the work of others rather than doing your own.

-"All of your ideas fail to explain the data."

I would agree that they would not "explain" the data to an evolutionist stuck in their hole, tree, um theory. Perhaps a bit too forward thinking for most\all.

-"BTW You are also misreading the links you provided. All the studies are perfectly in line with evolutionary theory."

Your very weak demeanor is showing... You stated in your prior post; "To my knowledge there is no case of a virus that infects plants and animals. If you can find one, I would be interested in learning about it."

Quite alright - I did not expect a thank you for enlightening you with this information. I gave you specific examples to help expand your mind a bit... that the plant ERVs in these articles were used by evolutionists to explain their "theories" is just the way it is with ERV research for the most part (except in disease research); which BTW is completely incorrect. If the data discovered in disease research, the suppositions given in evolutionary sciences, and the known pleomorphic behavior of cells along with genetic on\off switching were considered as a whole instead of individually with extremely narrow tunnel vision, the ideas would expand beyond their very limited fields of visions and provide for an even greater knowledge of life than previously thought or imagined. Far be it for me to expect anyone to see that and come to the realization.

As far as retroviral integration is concerned, why would I want to "understand" it in the way that the narrow minded evolutionary Science is presenting it, when it is an incorrect interpretation designed to "fit" the evolution model from the get go?

If one were to study the retroviral integration OUTSIDE of evolutionary science, as I eluded to in an above paragraph, perhaps the discrepancies in the model would appear much more obvious to the closed mind.

At times, when one wishes to move forward, they must back away, study the terrain, and change directions... it is long past due for a different approach.

Quite alright though... enjoy your comfort :-)

grz-

Tweet