Contradictory data are usually filtered out long before the analysis step, thus improving the fit. Evolutionists make all kinds of erroneous claims about how astronomically well the data fit their theory.

Can you give a specific example or two of that happening?

If not, well, it seems to undermine your entire argument as to the accuracy of “evolution”.

A man can make an argument regardless of whether he is YEC or not as a belief within the whole spectrum that makes up his worldview.

Yes indeed. I said as much in my own follow up comment.

The question is, is the argument scientific? Given that it’s clear that the website espouses a creationist viewpoint why should they get special treatment?

What I’m saying is that you are attempting to rebut a scientific point with somebody’s simple opinion.

If it’s indeed the case that the website has disproved one of the foundational pieces of the puzzle, namely the understanding of how ERVs and transposons contribute to our understanding of common descent, then I would suggest he writes it up and sends it to Nature.

If he sticks to the science it’ll have the same chance of publication as any other paper.

So yes, a man can make an argument regardless of if he is a YEC or not, but if he is a self proclaimed YEC who believes in a literal Noah’s Ark then that sends a signal right there.

So, do you have a specific data point from the link you gave to the YEC site that rebuts the contention that

Chimps and humans share RANDOMLY INSERTED ERVs and transposons in the SAME SPOT on the genome in the SAME order. These genetic elements can ONLY be acquired through inheritance.

or not? What specific part in that rather large, rambling website rebuts that exact point? Can you make the argument yourself?

I can link to many more things, most of which will be peer reviewed that make the opposite case that the link you gave is making. Do I then win? Argument by number of links?

I don’t rule everything you write out because you disbelieve in your own soul and are an atheistic materialist.

And I don’t rule out everthing that you say because you believe in ghosts, you don’t support your points and think sarcasm counts as an argument.

If a persons other beliefs made a person incredible as a whole on any subject whatsoever, I would never consider anything you have to say on anything, including a recipe for cooking pasta, so the same respect should be extended by you.

And I’m doing that by asking you to engage on the issue at hand rather then simply provide a link and saying “there, that proves it”.

I can create a website that says “Common descent is true”. If I provide a link to that website, will I have proven my case? That’s essentially what you have just done.

You compare YEC to hobos, everything they may ever say is ruled out of hand by your bias, that I begin to find you unreasonable in general.

That’s simply not true as anyone who’s read the thread in question can attest to. I said asking a creationist for an opinion on the age of the earth is like asking a hobo for financial advice. They’ve already made their unsuitability for the role obvious. The hobo by having no money, the creationist by having a scientifically unsupportable and discredited view on the age of the earth.

And yes, you can ban me if you prefer. It won’t make any difference to the strength or support for your argument (or link).

The more this goes on, the more it believe you are a YEC Clive.

Will you say that you are not a YEC Clive or not?

I responded in a new post.

A man can make an argument regardless of whether he is YEC or not as a belief within the whole spectrum that makes up his worldview. I don’t rule everything you write out because you disbelieve in your own soul and are an atheistic materialist. If a persons other beliefs made a person incredible as a whole on any subject whatsoever, I would never consider anything you have to say on anything, including a recipe for cooking pasta, so the same respect should be extended by you.

And you know, it’s this sort of thing that troubles me about you. You compare YEC to hobos, everything they may ever say is ruled out of hand by your bias, that I begin to find you unreasonable in general.

Argument et linkum won’t cut it if the link is to a creationist.

To preempt:
That’s of course not to say that it’s impossible a creationist could have something worthwhile to say. But the moment you introduce creationism or a “literal Noah’s Ark” the science hat comes right off.

And that link?

You want people to wade through that?

You get it fact checked and peer reviewed first.

There is only so much time in the day!

http://www.detectingdesign.com.....Endogenous

Is to a creationist website.

Sean D. Pitman M.D. is a creationist. He believes in a literal Noah’s Ark

http://www.detectingdesign.com/DesmondFord.html

He has a bio on creation Wiki

http://creationwiki.org/Sean_D._Pitman

His work on his website is not peer reviewed. It’s just a website.

And this is how you rebut

Chimps and humans share RANDOMLY INSERTED ERVs and transposons in the SAME SPOT on the genome in the SAME order. These genetic elements can ONLY be acquired through inheritance.

by linking to a person who probably believes the earth is 10,000 or less years old?

Unlike some here I click on the links provided as ironclad rebuttals.

That’s actually not true.

You’ll have to do better then that, provide a specific argument addressing a specific point or concede. Argument et linkum won’t cut it if the link is to a creationist.

You are not a YEC are you Clive? If not, why link to one as evidence in a argument?

http://www.teachertube.com/vie.....n_Ancestry

I’m interested to hear what the flaw in the argument is. Clive’s link does seem to be rebutted by the simple probability issue SingBlueSilver details in a previous comment. Admittedly Clive has not yet responded with specifics so I’ll await his thoughts on why that is (presumably) not the case.

To watch the video type in:

Investigating Evolution: Homology

in youtube.

Meanwhile, here’s yet more evidence for common descent:

Dinosaur Fossils Fit Perfectly Into The Evolutionary Tree Of Life, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Jan. 30, 2009) — A recent study by researchers at the University of Bath and London’s Natural History Museum has found that scientists’ knowledge of the evolution of dinosaurs is remarkably complete.

Evolutionary biologists use two ways to study the evolution of prehistoric plants and animals: firstly they use radioactive dating techniques to put fossils in chronological order according to the age of the rocks in which they are found (stratigraphy); secondly they observe and classify the characteristics of fossilised remains according to their relatedness (morphology).

Dr Matthew Wills from the University of Bath’s Department of Biology & Biochemistry worked with Dr Paul Barrett from the Natural History Museum and Julia Heathcote at Birkbeck College (London) to analyse statistical data from fossils of the four major groups of dinosaur to see how closely they matched their trees of evolutionary relatedness.

The researchers found that the fossil record for the dinosaurs studied, ranging from gigantic sauropods to two-legged meat eaters such as T. rex, matched very well with the evolutionary tree, meaning that the current view of evolution of these creatures is very accurate.

As I have learned through the years debating materialists, It is pointless to discuss an issue with someone who refuses to acknowledge the flaws of there assumptions. Thus I will politely refrain from correcting your errors of argument.

I showed you DNA fingerprints indicative of common descent. You responded that the fingerprints are not non-functional. I responded that I never said that, and I reiterated my original argument.

You then poison the well by saying “materialists” refuse to acknowledge the flaws of their assumptions.

I.E., you never responded to my original argument at all, and now you attack me personally.

???