Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Revelation777]

That's a bit skewed. There are creationist scientists, and if I remember correctly the guy who runs the Human Genome project is one.

One of the guys who ran it is Francis Collins. He's a Christian who believes that evolution is the way God did it.

From An Interview

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

According to Revelation777, Francis Collins is only pretending to go along with evolution because he doesn't want to be ostracised by the scientific community.

I didn't say that about Francis Collins but I believe there is a pressure to accept evolution or else.

---

This critiques your stance on this, I believe game is still in progress.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

The last section of this 12+ page article does in fact deal with retroviral insertions. (It's a response to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...troviruses )

The claim here is that common ancestry is the only viable explanation for “finding [ERVs] in identical chromosomal positions of two different species.” It is based on the premise that ERVs are (and always have been) nonfunctional products of retroviral infection that have, for the most part, inserted randomly into the genome of the host organism. The presumed nonfunctionality of ERVs is thought to eliminate the explanation of design (because a Designer could have no purpose in placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species). The presumed randomness of ERV insertion is thought to eliminate the explanation of chance (because the DNA “chain” is too long for coincidental insertion at the same locus to be a realistic possibility). That leaves common ancestry as the remaining explanation.

Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding. The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded. God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture (see Gibson’s comments in the discussion of Prediction 19).

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

So, is it your entire objection that ERVs aren't evidence for evolution and common descent because God "could've done it that way" ?

God can do as He well pleases. If you make your own universe then do as you please.