Creationist logic, that means it's a red herring. I get it.
My discussion was the paper on ERV.
Yeah. What about it? Your original post about the paper claimed it demolished the idea that ERVs can be used to track evolution. But the abstract specifically said otherwise. Please post an explanation for why I am wrong. Be specific.
You can try to change the subject to depth charging octopi, but it would still be a red herring.
Your Morton's demon is allowing you to deliberately miss my point. The Bible said God is the creator, but doesn't give any significant detail about how He did this. Same with thunderstorms.
If you believe God causes thunderstorms, then why aren't you railing at classes about the weather that mention evaporation and condensation? After all, God created the weather, and that's it. No mention of evaporation should be allowed in your world, if you are to remain consistent with your claim that evolution should be ignored.
You don't understand English well. I did not write, "Your original post about the paper claimed it demolished the idea that ERVs can be used to track evolution." I wrote, "but it grieviously injures the assertion that ERV's are the end-all to assigning absolute relationships." Your demon is working feverishly.