Yes. Since you uh, haven't provided any yet.(shrug)Is it true that no other possibilities have been proposed?
Then if, metaphorically speaking, you wish to refer to nature as "God" then fair play to ya. However nature is only evidence of nature. It's not evidence of an invisible Jew wizard that exists beyond spacetime as we know it.As it relates to evidence, the idea that God existed originated from man's experience of nature; so I fail to see how you can conclude that there is no evidence for God when nature is in itself the evidence for God.
Actually I can. It's called common ancestry. "Goddidit" is not an explanation. It gives us a WHO, not a HOW. And does so without evidence. It doesn't actually explain anything.If you ask me HOW orthologous ERV evented, I would refer to scientific knowledge.
If you asked me WHAT made orthologous ERV possible, I would say Goddidit.
You cant do much better than that either.
Baseless.Abundant in the natural world.
Religious opinions I've offered I also pointed out were only opinions. Not the case when I talk science.Yours arent much better.
If you say so.Thats all you will be able to do, essentially.
I MIGHT agree with you here, except for the fact the agent IS relevant when you SPECIFICALLY claim it exists. And you have.Not really.
Even in the presence of scientific evidence that an agent is responsible for an event; the agent is still superfluous to the study of the event.
The agent is superfluous, regardless of evidence of its existence.