Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
lifepsyop said:I agree. Creationists are still fallible, no matter how much Biblical truth they embrace. I don't care if every creationist in the world says one thing, I will side with what I believe to be a plain reading of scripture. Let God tell the truth and all men be liars.
This claim is a demonstrable falsehood. I have said now multiple times that the data can be rationalized by design, but I've also explained that any concievable pattern can. Simply put, there is no concievable observation we could not rationalize with "that is what the designer wanted".lifepsyop said:I stopped posting because the only poster left offering engagement on data was Rumraket, and he refused to respond to my original phylogeny challenge in the OP, instead wanting to drag the discussion into other specific areas where he feels comfortable.
Rumraket's schtick is to toss out pages of information, claim that such results could not be derived unless Common Descent is true (which is almost always apparently false)
lifepsyop said:I stopped posting because the only poster left offering engagement on data was Rumraket...
lifepsyop said:...and know that most readers won't have the stamina to dig in and examine the claims.
lifepsyop said:I stopped posting because the only poster left offering engagement on data was Rumraket, and he refused to respond to my original phylogeny challenge in the OP, instead wanting to drag the discussion into other specific areas where he feels comfortable.
Rumraket's schtick is to toss out pages of information, claim that such results could not be derived unless Common Descent is true (which is almost always apparently false), and know that most readers won't have the stamina to dig in and examine the claims. I lost interest weeks ago.
My original argument stands. With the rescue devices of incomplete lineage sorting, and the extent to which it has been used (as I clearly demonstrated in the OP), Common Descent is extremely well insulated from falsifiability.
What's more, the claim that ERV's found in major lineages supports Common Descent is basically a sham. As I've shown, those ERV sites could be mixed around in practically any order and still be able to be rescued.
This is why Rumraket is avoiding the OP and kicking up dust with other topics. He wants to confuse the simple issue I've laid out, and dazzle readers.
Anyways, enjoy the cyber-stalking.
Tu quoque.lifepsyop said:I stopped posting because the only poster left offering engagement on data was Rumraket, and he refused to respond to my original phylogeny challenge in the OP, instead wanting to drag the discussion into other specific areas where he feels comfortable.
Rumraket's schtick is to toss out pages of information, claim that such results could not be derived unless Common Descent is true (which is almost always apparently false), and know that most readers won't have the stamina to dig in and examine the claims.
Again, tu quoque.lifepsyop said:I lost interest weeks ago.
My original argument stands. With the rescue devices of incomplete lineage sorting, and the extent to which it has been used (as I clearly demonstrated in the OP), Common Descent is extremely well insulated from falsifiability.
What's more, the claim that ERV's found in major lineages supports Common Descent is basically a sham. As I've shown, those ERV sites could be mixed around in practically any order and still be able to be rescued.
This is why Rumraket is avoiding the OP and kicking up dust with other topics. He wants to confuse the simple issue I've laid out, and dazzle readers.
Anyways, enjoy the cyber-stalking.