You are claiming that genetic tests used in courts are a matter of faith and not a hard fact. Following your standards you should ask the supreme court to abolish them.Byblos wrote: If you're ready to concede that those points are also a matter of faith and restrict the discussion to the provable and the observable then I am also ready to concede that the origin of life and the need for a creator is a matter of faith as well.
I agree that the distiction between faith and science is not digital. Everything is somewhere in between.
However, I think that some claims are nearer to science (the Earth is spherical, General relativity describes gravity, we share a common ancestor with chimps) others are nearer to faith (Jesus was divine, god created the universe in six literal days...).
I consider ERV as nearer to science than genetic tests.
You may disagree on this, but only a detailed discussions of ERV can decide who is right.
If you want to comment the ERV thread you are still welcome.
Considered all, I believe I was far more patient than him.Byblos wrote: I think we all need to assess our styles of debate and adjust accordingly.
Let's keep the discussion civil (otherwise I will have no choice but to wield
the moderator ax and start chopping ).
Of course he will not agree...
All I can do is ignoring him. It is sad and I should not do it.
But I cannot avoid it and keep be civil. Thus I quit.
I think abiogenesis has nothing to do with common ancestors and evolutions of species.Byblos wrote: I don't see how we can continue the discussion without first agreeing on some common grounds with respect to abiogenesis.
In fact one can believe in common ancestor and designer at the same time.
I understand the philosophical position that discussing abiogenesis come first as a prerequisite.
However, the same position would require to understand quantum gravity before stating kepler laws,
or discuss DNA before curing or screaning genetic illness.
However, if for some reason I don't understand you feel obliged to discuss abiogenesis first I am ready to do it.
Only I ask you to skip the issue until I posted my faith position as required.
I cannot follow another thread now.
If you wish open the thread and I will join as soon as i exit the faith stuff one.
I did not call on my PHD before and I will not call on it now.Byblos wrote: The fact that you have a PHD in mathematics certainly entitles you to disagree with them and to state why.
The fact that I have a PHD does not entitle me to anything. It could help me to easily imagine where their argument comes from, but I believe anyone free of mind can follow and check and agree that the argument posted by GMan is rough and has nothing to do with chemistry.
For example you acknowledged it and I doubt anyone could accuse you to be on my side.
Please forget about my PhD.
I believe who use an argument takes the co-responsability of it.
I usually do not use arguments I do not agree with (except for ab absurdum reduction, of course).
Of course anyone can be wrong sometime. Acknowledging would be welcome in those case.