Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

I don't recall denying that. Please point out where I did.

That means it is useless as a theory. If you want it to be considered in relation to science theory, yes. If you want it to be considered an ad hoc religious concocted fantasy pretending to be worth discussing, then no ... I would expect it to be full of nonsense, like: Thanks for admitting that it is useless ad hoc religious concocted fantasy.This also means it is invalid to use in a science thread, because it is just a (latest in a long line) form of "god-did-it" argument of absolutely no scientific value. This is a science thread, and that means no "god-did-it" fantasies allowed.But buck-up, it's not completely useless ... it can always serve as a bad example of creationist thinking.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

So does magic. All of which exist only in your imagination. And? That is exactly what I've thought through.So what is the point of this thread? You have expended thirty some pages on a point of exactly no consequence.

Okay, then you agree that the theory of evolution is useful, yes?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Parts of this site are strictly and explicitly scientific, parts are explicitly non-scientific. Click "forums" at the top of the window and note the grouping.Duh.Somewhere around here there's an explicit statement of the differences between the groups, but I can't find it r now.

Dupe. . Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

So, no real point to this thread then.UCA is not useful to you so it is not useful to you. That makes sense.What will be your next revelation? Edited by edge, : No reason given.

That's a distinction without a difference. You don't get to define "practical' any more than you get to define "useful". You can't just claim a use is not a practical use.

Oh you think you manipulation of language is a victory for you. Alas, all it does is further expose that you have no argument. Nothing but a troll.

Then this thread needs to be closed. You admit you are not discussing science. If you want to continue this discussion it needs to move to the faith forums, it does not belong in the science forums, because no matter how much science is presented you will just dismiss because of your religious beliefs. In other words you are just trolling.Admin - do you not think this thread should be closed since Dredge admits all he has is a faith argument?

It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.

Logically incorrect - scientific knowledge and understanding has been shown to be continually expanding - new explanations for phenomena are regularly discovered.Ergo your prediction is unverifiable, and does therefore not qualify as a prediction for the purposes of the definition of a theory.Care to try again ?

Except that it isn't ...But the modern theory of evolution predicts that there will be explainable gaps in the fossil record.

You can predict that something will be unexplainable just like you can predict that mankind will never fly - but then it happens; the prediction was wrong.That isn't the same as ToE predicting that the gaps will be explained. When a gap is filled in - and it happens every day - you can't unfill it.

So, what is your definition of your theory of "Progressive Creation?"Is there a formal theory that is published somewhere or are you just making it up as you go along?Is there a scientific publication that lays out all the particulars of the "theory" or are you the only adherent?How does PC determine that any gaps in the fossil record are inexplicable by science? What specific evidence confirms that any gaps in the fossil record are scientifically inexplicable?Is your prediction that gaps in the fossil record can never be scientifically explained? If so, how specifically could you confirm that prediction?Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.