Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

I don't know what to accept - I don't trust evolutionary scientists to present and interpret the evidence objectively and honestly. So goes the Darwinist tale ... all organisms share certain tRNA genes, therefore humans and lettuce must have descended from a common ancestor. LOL!The absurdity of humans and lettuce descending from a common ancestor not withstanding, I accept that UCD is the best scientific explanation for universally shared tRNA. However, that doesn't disprove the divine-creation explanation.Giving common sequences the name, "conserved sequences" doesn't prove the Darwinist narrative is the truth. Exactly. Why mess around with fossils when you can claim UCD simply on the basis of a "universally shared genes" like tRNA?​​

Modern biology begins with the assumption that UCD is an established scientific fact. All evidence must be interpreted according to that paradigm.

That is the only thing you've ever written that was worth reading.

Calling me a "vegetable" is most unfair, inaccurate and hurtful. I have an IQ of 9 ... vegetables have an average IQ of zero; for some of them, less than zero.So although I am technically an idiot, compared to your garden-variety vegetable, I am a veritable genius.

You've got me there, blondie.

So, science can't prove that UCD is a fact ... funny that.

Junk No Longer: ERVs Are “Integral” and “Important Components” of Immune Responses – Evolution News

The following article is a bit old (2011), but I thought you might find it interesting nevertheless:Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? – Evolution News

You appear to be contradicting yourself - you're saying UCD is a fact that can't be proven.Fascinating.

"If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."Matthew 15:14

I did point out that that article was eleven years old ...

Ouch! You really know how to hurt a bloke ...

There's probably not much difference between a dozen verified ERVs and 200,000 questionable ERVs.Everyone knows that Darwinist scientists can't be trusted and that they exaggerate the evidence for their cherished beliefs.It's a bit like how the media reported that "300,000" spectators lined the streets to watch the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras, but the police reported a crowd of considerably less - about 30,000.

A classic example is evolutionary scientists claiming that they "know how evolution works" ... which is actually worse than an exaggeration ... it's a flat-out lie. It's impossible to know what process was responsible for producing the changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record."The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but
not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity
of their beliefs."Pierre-Paul Grassé, EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS, TRANS. FROM FRENCH (ACADEMIC PRESS: NEW YORK, NY, 1977) P.8 NOV 30 . 1977Another source of Darwinist exaggeration is transitional fossils .... Archaeopteryx, is a classic example.In short, anyone who trusts what Darwinist scientists say is a fool.

Tany is just being a good Darwinist ... a good Darwinist ignores any evidence that doesn't conform to Darwinist dictrine. Typical cult behaviour ... inconvenient truths are not allowed to get a foot in the door.