A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[Subduction Zone]

Same state past religion. Decay requires this present state. Stop pulpit pounding.





Not really, it is a godless way to refer to creation.

"The earliest written and safely dated literal references to the term "Mother Earth" occur in Mycenaean Greek ma-ka (transliterated as ma-ga), "Mother Gaia", written in Linear B syllabic script (13th or 12th century BC).[1] The various myths of nature goddesses such as Inanna/Ishtar (myths and hymns attested on Mesopotamian tablets as early as the 3rd millennium BC) show that the personification of the creative and nurturing sides of Nature as female deities had deep roots.


Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth or the Earth-Mother) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother. Images of women representing mother earth, and mother nature, are timeless. In prehistoric times, goddesses were worshipped for their association with fertility, fecundity, and agricultural bounty. Priestesses held dominion over aspects of Incan, Algonquian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Slavonic, Germanic, Roman, Greek, Indian, and Iroquoian religions in the millennia prior to the inception of patriarchal religions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Nature

In other words, literally demonism.

dad, so sad. You cannot use a claim of "demonism against those thst do not believe in demons.

 

[Bolleke]

We were discussing something earlier and I still don't know if my observation is right?

So the waste DNA similair in chimps and us is passed through by our common ancestor?
Because chimps have the same 8% construction of retroviruses, they are able to see that.
Right? It got silent there, but I wanna have my observation right.

 

[mark kennedy]

How did you become a creationist?

PS. If you do answer, you are more truthful than I thought you would be,
and I would like to apologise for doubting you.

Why would I not want to answer a questions like that, it's straightforward enough. Any hoot, I became a Creationist because I'm a Christian and all Christians are Creationists. You don't believe me try the first three stanzas of the Nicene Creed.

Ok, so on the assumption your seriously interested it was the shear animosity toward Christian conviction. God can't be considered the creator or even get credit for the design so clearly there are two philosophical issues that have mingled. One is the atheistic materialism that is at the heart of Darwinian evolution and then there is science itself that has been so badly misrepresented by Darwinians that lack the courage of their convictions. They are obsessed with attacking creationists on a personal level and that's not science, it's a secular social and political philosophy that has twisted the sciences around their naturalistic assumptions.

Christianity is a miraculous faith, what is being passed off as evolution is really nothing more then a naturalistic assumption. I don't think I'm interested in catering to a philosophy that has always been at odds with the Christian faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you own a person, and you beat the person so badly that he dies three days later should you be punished?

What if you don't own a child, but you're a family's au pair?

 

[dad]

dad, so sad. You cannot use a claim of "demonism against those thst do not believe in demons.

According to the bible the gods of the nations are demons. The goddesses that mother nature is derived from are certainly demons. I can, and I will point out truth as I see fit. Hows them apples?

 

[dad]

That's easy. If you own a person, and you beat the person so badly that he dies three days later should you be punished? Not according to the Bible.

If you rape a young girl (for Bible fans this means virgin) and you pay the father a moderate fee and marry her should you be punished? Not according to the Bible.

False. You are conflating morals, times and peoples. Don't pull an Obama on us.

 

[Queller]

Any hoot, I became a Creationist because I'm a Christian and all Christians are Creationists. You don't believe me try the first three stanzas of the Nicene Creed.

It may be true that all Christians are Creationists, but not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists. There is a significant difference between the two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. You are conflating morals, times and peoples. Don't pull an Obama on us.

No, it says it is okay in the Bible. The "law" was never removed. Do you want quotes and verses? I can get them for you.

I see that you dodged the question and made an unsupported claim and never even offered to support it.

See dad, when I say the Bible says something I can get verses that directly support my claims. You have failed to do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the bible the gods of the nations are demons. The goddesses that mother nature is derived from are certainly demons. I can, and I will point out truth as I see fit. Hows them apples?

Really? Or are those simply your false interpretations of certain verses.

We have gone down this road before, your interpretation of the Bible is not everyone else's interpretation of the Bible. You cannot even justify your interpretations. I let the Bible say what it says, warts and all. It tells us who wrote it and why if you don't mess with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Polymorphic ERV insertions in the ancestral population will work like any other allele (assuming no selection, of course), so I wouldn't be surprised to find some gorilla-human shared insertions. Since there are few polymorphic ERVs at any given time, I wouldn't expect to find many of them, however.

There are only a handful orthologous ERV's that I know of that do not have the predicted distribution. Given that there are 200,000+ ERV's in ape genomes that do follow the expected distribution, it isn't surprising to see a handful that fall outside of the expected distribution due to the known mechanism of genetic drift for alleles that haven't reach fixation.

A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans

 

[Loudmouth]

So the waste DNA similair in chimps and us is passed through by our common ancestor?

The whole genome is passed on, be it functional or junk.

Because chimps have the same 8% construction of retroviruses, they are able to see that.

Yes. They sequenced both the human and chimp genome, and they were able to find ERV's in the genomes, and the DNA sequence on either side of the insertion. By comparing the ERV's and their placement in the genome they are able to determine if they are orthologous (i.e. same place in the genome) or not.

Whether ERV's are functional or not is really a non-issue because it has nothing to do with whether or not they are orthologous, nor would being functional put their origin in doubt.

 

[Loudmouth]

Look at the Cambrian layer...see many?

In the terrestrial Cambrian layers we see no life at all. How do you explain that?

 

[Loudmouth]

OK I see now how ERV's can settle in our DNA and remain locked there, as it becomes part of our genome. Right til that part, ok?
So now they are looking at human ERV's and brought one to life, right? As I understood this virus causes a bad mutation, cancer. I may have been wrong about leukemia. I read they are the pathogenis of cancer.

Let's use an analogy to explain the problems with your argument.

I am a crime scene investigator. At the crime scene, I find that the victim was killed by two bullets, and therefore by two pulls of the trigger. From this observation, I conclude that everytime someone pulls the trigger on a gun, it kills someone.

Is that a good argument? I wouldn't think so, but it is the argument you are using. You are arguing that everytime a retrovirus inserts into the host genome that it causes cancer. It doesn't. These are relatively rare events. This only happens when the virus interrupts the normal function of an oncogene which make up a very tiny percentage of your genome. The vast majority of retroviral insertions do not cause cancer.

As you can also surmise, the rare insertion that is detrimental or lethal would not be passed on to the next generation if it occurred in a sperm or egg cell. It would result in non-viable fetuses, or children who die before child bearing age.

The ERV they brought to life was already locked in the DNA of our common ancestor and got passed on to chimps and humans, for we are of the same lineage.

We are separate lineages that share a common ancestor just as your cousins are a different lineage but you do share a set of grandparents with them. You and your cousins will share the DNA found in your shared set of grandparents, but you will also differ by the mutations that happened in each of your different lineages.

Then how do they trace such a technique all the way back to a lungfish 400 mya? This only adds up to our common ancestor which hasn't been found yet.

If we haven't found a suspect for a crime, does that mean that all of the evidence demonstrating that there was a crime has gone away?

 

[dad]

In the terrestrial Cambrian layers we see no life at all. How do you explain that?

Before I look at that, show us some of this terrestrial Cambrian layer. Where do we find this? Is there a lot of it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Before I look at that, show us some of this terrestrial Cambrian layer. Where do we find this? Is there a lot of it?

Silly boy.

Don't you know where it is?

It's after the Precambrian and before the Postcambrian.

And shouldn't "terrestrial" tell you there's a lot of it?

 

[dad]

No, it says it is okay in the Bible. The "law" was never removed. Do you want quotes and verses? I can get them for you.
.

The laws you cite never applied to mankind. They applied to a people long ago. As I said, don't try to pull an Obama on us.

 

[dad]

It may be true that all Christians are Creationists, but not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists. There is a significant difference between the two.

Since Jesus and the folks who wrote the New Testament believed in a flood and first man, the only issue is when. Since we know Abraham lived around a certain time, and that he was said to be a contemporary of Noah, the timeframe is not any real issue. Belief is the issue.

 

[dad]

Silly boy.

Don't you know where it is?

It's after the Precambrian and before the Postcambrian.

And shouldn't "terrestrial" tell you there's a lot of it?

Since I recall that there are only certain places on earth they find Cambrian layer stuff, I am wondering how much of this is 'terrestrial'. If there are no fossils in it, how do we even know it is Cambrian!

 

[dad]

We are separate lineages that share a common ancestor just as your cousins are a different lineage but you do share a set of grandparents with them. You and your cousins will share the DNA found in your shared set of grandparents, but you will also differ by the mutations that happened in each of your different lineages.

That depends on who the 'we' is. If you include flatworms and etc, speak for yourself. If you think having a shared ancient virus or pre virus means they got it through birth, I must point out you are invoking the religion of a same state past. No can do. Transfer could have happened another way.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It is validated by it's agreement..nip and tuck with God Almighty. We KNOW when man and animals were created. Got a better explanation that fits the bible?

this seems to be a confession that all the evidence from the natural world fails to back the idea that the Bible is inerrant and that in order to rescue the idea of biblical inerrancy one is driven to the idea that all our discoveries about the nature of reality must be cast aside as worthless.

Thank you for making that very plain.