A Question to the Creationists

[crawfish]

That's the difference between you and me, I read what they publish. The ERVs are a prime example:

CERV 1/PTERV1
With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. CERV 1/PTERV1 elements range in size from 5 to 8.8 kb in length, are bordered by inverted terminal repeats (TG and CA) and are characterized by 4 bp TSDs...Phylogenetic analysis of the LTRs from full-length elements of CERV 1/PTERV1 members indicated that this family of LTRs can be grouped into at least two subfamilies (bootstrap value of 99; Figure 3). The age of each subfamily was estimated by calculating the average of the pairwise distances between all sequences in a given subfamily. The estimated ages of the two subfamilies are 5 MY and 7.8 MY, respectively, suggesting that at least one subfamily was present in the lineage prior to the time chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (about 6 MYA). This conclusion, however, is inconsistent with the fact that no CERV 1/PTERV1 orthologues were detected in the sequenced human genome.
Genome Biol. 2006​

All I can tell you is read what they publish, they will get it right there.

Have a nice day
Mark

How do you explain the other 40?

 

[shernren]

That's the difference between you and me, I read what they publish. The ERVs are a prime example:

CERV 1/PTERV1
With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. CERV 1/PTERV1 elements range in size from 5 to 8.8 kb in length, are bordered by inverted terminal repeats (TG and CA) and are characterized by 4 bp TSDs...Phylogenetic analysis of the LTRs from full-length elements of CERV 1/PTERV1 members indicated that this family of LTRs can be grouped into at least two subfamilies (bootstrap value of 99; Figure 3). The age of each subfamily was estimated by calculating the average of the pairwise distances between all sequences in a given subfamily. The estimated ages of the two subfamilies are 5 MY and 7.8 MY, respectively, suggesting that at least one subfamily was present in the lineage prior to the time chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (about 6 MYA). This conclusion, however, is inconsistent with the fact that no CERV 1/PTERV1 orthologues were detected in the sequenced human genome.
Genome Biol. 2006​

All I can tell you is read what they publish, they will get it right there.

Have a nice day
Mark

The difference between you and me is that I read all of what they publish:

The estimated ages of the two subfamilies are 5 MY and 7.8 MY, respectively, suggesting that at least one subfamily was present in the lineage prior to the time chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (about 6 MYA). This conclusion, however, is inconsistent with the fact that no CERV 1/PTERV1 orthologues were detected in the sequenced human genome. Moreover, we were able to detect pre-integration sites at those regions in the human genome orthologous to the CERV 1/PTERV1 insertion sites in chimpanzees, effectively eliminating the possibility that the elements were once present in humans but subsequently excised. Consistent with our findings, the results of a previously published Southern hybridization survey indicated that sequences orthologous to CERV 1/PTERV1 elements are present in the African great apes and old world monkeys but not in Asian apes or humans. These results suggest that some members of the CERV 1/PTERV1 subfamily entered the chimpanzee genome after the split from humans through exogenous infections from closely related species and subsequently increased in copy number by retrotransposition. Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses

Not only were the researchers able to explain this, they did so with reference to other studies:

Based on analysis of finished BAC chimpanzee genome sequence, we characterize a retroviral element (Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus 1 [PTERV1]) that has become integrated in the germline of African great ape and Old World monkey species but is absent from humans and Asian ape genomes. We unambiguously map 287 retroviral integration sites and determine that approximately 95.8% of the insertions occur at non-orthologous regions between closely related species. Phylogenetic analysis of the endogenous retrovirus reveals that the gorilla and chimpanzee elements share a monophyletic origin with a subset of the Old World monkey retroviral elements, but that the average sequence divergence exceeds neutral expectation for a strictly nuclear inherited DNA molecule. Within the chimpanzee, there is a significant integration bias against genes, with only 14 of these insertions mapping within intronic regions. Six out of ten of these genes, for which there are expression data, show significant differences in transcript expression between human and chimpanzee. Our data are consistent with a retroviral infection that bombarded the genomes of chimpanzees and gorillas independently and concurrently, 3–4 million years ago. We speculate on the potential impact of such recent events on the evolution of humans and great apes. Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans

You chose the very families that aren't spreading just by inheritance to try to disprove evolution? Shows that you have no idea how the ERV argument works; you really should learn how to cite sources with integrity, too.

 

[rcorlew]

One of the major problems with the Theory of Evolution is that it is dualistic, it states that Organism A was the predecessor of Organism B because of their similarities while at the same time saying that Organism A and Organism B are not the same species because of their differences; in other words, because Organism A and Organism B are close they are related, but because they are not close then they are not the same. Science is extremely indecisive about its definitions, saying that if two organisms cannot interbreed they are different species, but if organisms can interbreed yet are separated geographically then the geography defines the species (Salmon in the Northwest US are a prime example). Trying to get a single definition that is inclusive and unchanging in science is like nailing Jello to a wall, it will not happen.

To use the lineage proposed for humans, they say that we have a genome with a 98% similarity rate with that of the chimpanzees which would indicate a familiar ancestor. Well let us look at this issue, we have a 98% similar genome, which conversely means there is a 2% dissimilar rate, it doesn't sound like much now does it. The human genome however has 3 billion base pairs, now a 2% dissimilar rate would indicate that the difference between humans and chimps is a staggering 60 million base pairs.

Now here is another problem, just within the human genome there are a 10^116,446,000 possible genomic expressions possible, now here is where the multitude of complications begin, that number is only for a haploid gene, a diploid gene would double the number of base pairs. Now, approximately 2% of Human DNA is responsible for coding (60 million base pairs) and they have yet to map the chimp genome, and with numbers that would be similar to humans just for the sake of argument, would mean that 2% of its genome is responsible for coding. Again utilizing only a small portion of the possible information.

Now, the $64,000 question is, is it possible that the chimp uses completely different codon sequences to due its coding than humans do (This is actually quite common in biology that different organisms use codons to derive the same synthesis product)?

 

[Voice in the Desert]

1) Is believing in Creationism essential to salvation on the cross? If so, how? Please cite Biblical scripture.
Romans 10:9-10 tell us all that is necessary for salvation.


"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

2) Why do creationists not cut off their eyes and hands when they sin? Why don't you? Why should creationists in particular be in favor of bodily mutilation in the face of sin? As I think you are making nothing more here than a snide side-swipe at a twisted perception of literal bible interpretation I will ignore this one.

3) Why do you think evolution is a tool of the devil? Where does it say this in scripture?
Do all creationists use these words? Regardless I will refer you to 2 Corinthians 10:5.

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Naturalistic evolution sets itself up as a direct counter to the biblical account of special creation which is foundational for our understanding of God, the nature of man, the nature of sin, and our need for a savior. Making it no different than any other humanistic/atheistic pretension against the word of God.

 

[Mallon]

One of the major problems with the Theory of Evolution is that it is dualistic, it states that Organism A was the predecessor of Organism B because of their similarities while at the same time saying that Organism A and Organism B are not the same species because of their differences; in other words, because Organism A and Organism B are close they are related, but because they are not close then they are not the same.

Isn't that exactly what we do when we infer that two people must be closely related because they look so similar (e.g., sisters)?

 

[mark kennedy]

Look at the ERV 1 and consider, the largest number of ERVs are not represented in our genome. I get really tired of pretending that you are making a substantive argument as I'm sure you are.

The difference between you and me is that I read all of what they publish:

The estimated ages of the two subfamilies are 5 MY and 7.8 MY, respectively, suggesting that at least one subfamily was present in the lineage prior to the time chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (about 6 MYA). This conclusion, however, is inconsistent with the fact that no CERV 1/PTERV1 orthologues were detected in the sequenced human genome. Moreover, we were able to detect pre-integration sites at those regions in the human genome orthologous to the CERV 1/PTERV1 insertion sites in chimpanzees, effectively eliminating the possibility that the elements were once present in humans but subsequently excised. Consistent with our findings, the results of a previously published Southern hybridization survey indicated that sequences orthologous to CERV 1/PTERV1 elements are present in the African great apes and old world monkeys but not in Asian apes or humans. These results suggest that some members of the CERV 1/PTERV1 subfamily entered the chimpanzee genome after the split from humans through exogenous infections from closely related species and subsequently increased in copy number by retrotransposition. Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses

Not only were the researchers able to explain this, they did so with reference to other studies:

Based on analysis of finished BAC chimpanzee genome sequence, we characterize a retroviral element (Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus 1 [PTERV1]) that has become integrated in the germline of African great ape and Old World monkey species but is absent from humans and Asian ape genomes. We unambiguously map 287 retroviral integration sites and determine that approximately 95.8% of the insertions occur at non-orthologous regions between closely related species. Phylogenetic analysis of the endogenous retrovirus reveals that the gorilla and chimpanzee elements share a monophyletic origin with a subset of the Old World monkey retroviral elements, but that the average sequence divergence exceeds neutral expectation for a strictly nuclear inherited DNA molecule. Within the chimpanzee, there is a significant integration bias against genes, with only 14 of these insertions mapping within intronic regions. Six out of ten of these genes, for which there are expression data, show significant differences in transcript expression between human and chimpanzee. Our data are consistent with a retroviral infection that bombarded the genomes of chimpanzees and gorillas independently and concurrently, 3–4 million years ago. We speculate on the potential impact of such recent events on the evolution of humans and great apes. Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans

You chose the very families that aren't spreading just by inheritance to try to disprove evolution? Shows that you have no idea how the ERV argument works; you really should learn how to cite sources with integrity, too.

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006). They can be found in African great apes but not in humans. What is more the ERV virus is nearly extinct in the human genome with only a couple that actually work. The only thing that ERVs are proof of is the lengths evolutionists will go to to conflate and confuse the evidence.

The current evidence is not indicating a smoking gun by any stretch. In fact, the ERVs are actually another problem for a common ancestor. In fact CERV 2 (Chimpanzee ERV) has an estimated age of 21.9 mya to 14.1 mya with no human orthologues. The CERV1/PtERV1 with 100 members is estimated between 5 mya and 7.8 mya. That means that the most abundant ERVs in the Chimpanzee Genome came about before or right around the split That means in addition to the adaptive evolution of the human brain our ancestors would have had to adapt their immune system to push these ERVs to the brink of extinction.

Retroelements and the human genome: New perspectives on an old relation

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[shernren]

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006). They can be found in African great apes but not in humans. What is more the ERV virus is nearly extinct in the human genome with only a couple that actually work. The only thing that ERVs are proof of is the lengths evolutionists will go to to conflate and confuse the evidence.

The current evidence is not indicating a smoking gun by any stretch. In fact, the ERVs are actually another problem for a common ancestor. In fact CERV 2 (Chimpanzee ERV) has an estimated age of 21.9 mya to 14.1 mya with no human orthologues. The CERV1/PtERV1 with 100 members is estimated between 5 mya and 7.8 mya. That means that the most abundant ERVs in the Chimpanzee Genome came about before or right around the split That means in addition to the adaptive evolution of the human brain our ancestors would have had to adapt their immune system to push these ERVs to the brink of extinction.

Retroelements and the human genome: New perspectives on an old relation

Have a nice day
Mark

If mark learned American history the way he learned evolution, he would think the Native Americans were the least important group for understanding American history - because there's so few of them! In fact, by 2050, he wouldn't think white Americans are important for American history either. He would talk mostly to Hispanics, and he would believe that America was founded by Mexicans and Chinese immigrants.

Sorry to touch on a very raw nerve (as I hear it is for many WASPs), but I can't see any other way to point out how ludicrous it is to try and frame theories about the genetic history of humans and chimpanzees based on a family of ERVs whose recent invasiveness and mobility are well attested for by independent lines of evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

How do you explain the other 40?

How do you explain the most abundant?

 

[mark kennedy]

If mark learned American history the way he learned evolution, he would think the Native Americans were the least important group for understanding American history - because there's so few of them! In fact, by 2050, he wouldn't think white Americans are important for American history either. He would talk mostly to Hispanics, and he would believe that America was founded by Mexicans and Chinese immigrants.

As usual I have no idea what you are talking about and pretty sure you don't either.

Sorry to touch on a very raw nerve (as I hear it is for many WASPs), but I can't see any other way to point out how ludicrous it is to try and frame theories about the genetic history of humans and chimpanzees based on a family of ERVs whose recent invasiveness and mobility are well attested for by independent lines of evidence.

The most abundant are not represented in the human genome and that refutes these silly homology arguments. You know this which is why your arguments become increasingly obscure. What really makes me curious is why you persist, that is an actual question since you have not been able to maintain a substantive line of argumentation since we have been debating and your theological argument was about as weak as I have seen, but that is no big suprise since TEs abandoned theology long ago.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Willtor]

As usual I have no idea what you are talking about and pretty sure you don't either.



The most abundant are not represented in the human genome and that refutes these silly homology arguments. You know this which is why your arguments become increasingly obscure. What really makes me curious is why you persist, that is an actual question since you have not been able to maintain a substantive line of argumentation since we have been debating and your theological argument was about as weak as I have seen, but that is no big suprise since TEs abandoned theology long ago.

Have a nice day
Mark

I understood his argument, Mark. In fact, I found it quite relevant.

Re: debating theology: I'm happy enough to talk theology. In fact, I'd rather all the particulars about evolution were moved to Creation and Evolution. That said, who was it that brought ERVs into the discussion?

 

[crawfish]

How do you explain the most abundant?

I think Shenren explained that quite well. I do not see how your answer matters one iota towards his post.

 

[mark kennedy]

I understood his argument, Mark. In fact, I found it quite relevant.

Re: debating theology: I'm happy enough to talk theology. In fact, I'd rather all the particulars about evolution were moved to Creation and Evolution. That said, who was it that brought ERVs into the discussion?

He seems quite content to maintain the standard line without addressing the difficulties. The most abundant ERVs would have had to be inserted well before or right around the time of the split. Bottom line, if the things in common are an argument in favor of common descent then the differences are a sound counter argument. However when you are confronted with naturalistic assumptions there is no end the the rationalizations.

ERVs are not a smoking gun, they are yet another problem for common descent, one that is never addressed.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[shernren]

He seems quite content to maintain the standard line without addressing the difficulties. The most abundant ERVs would have had to be inserted well before or right around the time of the split. Bottom line, if the things in common are an argument in favor of common descent then the differences are a sound counter argument. However when you are confronted with naturalistic assumptions there is no end the the rationalizations.

ERVs are not a smoking gun, they are yet another problem for common descent, one that is never addressed.

Have a nice day
Mark

Let's try again.

My younger sister becomes a successful actress and goes for a lot of plastic surgery. (Upon which she ceases to be a successful actress, tee-hee.) We're walking down the street together when one of her admirers sees us and asks who I am. I reply that I'm her brother and he says: "Can't be, you two look so different!"

"Oh, she's had lots of plastic surgery. That's not how she was born."

"I have an irrational need to justify my statement that you and this girl are unrelated, so who cares how she was born! All that matters to me is that you and her look very different now, and that proves that you two can't possibly be related!"

mark, it isn't just the similarities and differences that determine whether species are related or not; it's how those differences came about and when. For the chimpanzee ERVs we have solid evidence that PtERV1 was inserted into the chimpanzee genome well after the chimp-human split. Therefore, the fact that they aren't shared with humans is hardly surprising.

At the end of the day, though, I think I should borrow the title of that new Ray Comfort book and stop trying so hard:

"You can bring mark kennedy to the evidence, but you can't make him think."

 

[mark kennedy]

Let's try again.

My younger sister becomes a successful actress and goes for a lot of plastic surgery. (Upon which she ceases to be a successful actress, tee-hee.) We're walking down the street together when one of her admirers sees us and asks who I am. I reply that I'm her brother and he says: "Can't be, you two look so different!"

"Oh, she's had lots of plastic surgery. That's not how she was born."

"I have an irrational need to justify my statement that you and this girl are unrelated, so who cares how she was born! All that matters to me is that you and her look very different now, and that proves that you two can't possibly be related!"

mark, it isn't just the similarities and differences that determine whether species are related or not; it's how those differences came about and when. For the chimpanzee ERVs we have solid evidence that PtERV1 was inserted into the chimpanzee genome well after the chimp-human split. Therefore, the fact that they aren't shared with humans is hardly surprising.

At the end of the day, though, I think I should borrow the title of that new Ray Comfort book and stop trying so hard:

"You can bring mark kennedy to the evidence, but you can't make him think."

And you continue to argue in circles never really seeing that main point. The largest and most abundant ERVs in the chimpanzee genome are absent in the human genome.

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol101/suppl_2/images/medium/zpq0330457530001.gif​

Not some minor cosmetic difference but 2.8% of their genome. I have thought about the evidence a lot more then you ever will. That's the whole problem with TE, there is not thinking about the evidence. Just an a priori assumption that either the evidence supports common ancestry or the skeptic is ignorant.

Your begging the question of proof on your hands and knees because evolutionists convince their zombie minions that all they have to do is attack creationism to be scientific. You seem to forget, most of my arguments are based on the peer reviewed work published in scientific journals. I have not been successfully refuted on this point once and all you did was highlight a few lines and make some glib remarks.

Your not arguing from science, your arguing from supposition, the way you always do.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Willtor]

He seems quite content to maintain the standard line without addressing the difficulties. The most abundant ERVs would have had to be inserted well before or right around the time of the split. Bottom line, if the things in common are an argument in favor of common descent then the differences are a sound counter argument. However when you are confronted with naturalistic assumptions there is no end the the rationalizations.

ERVs are not a smoking gun, they are yet another problem for common descent, one that is never addressed.

Have a nice day
Mark

I would like to point out that you have totally ignored my comment about theology. As far as I can tell, it is not the TE's who do not want to talk about theology. It is you.

As I said above, I am more than eager to talk theology (especially in this forum). I suspect the other TE's, here, are as well.

I trust you will stop saying things like, "TEs abandoned theology long ago," without first removing the plank from your own eye.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would like to point out that you have totally ignored my comment about theology. As far as I can tell, it is not the TE's who do not want to talk about theology. It is you.

As I said above, I am more than eager to talk theology (especially in this forum). I suspect the other TE's, here, are as well.

I trust you will stop saying things like, "TEs abandoned theology long ago," without first removing the plank from your own eye.

Nonsense, I debated shernren on the theological issues and he did not make a single theological point. He called some of his generalities theological but they weren't anything resembling theology, they were careless rationalizations. I have yet to see a valid theological point raised by a TE and what is more I have never seen then defend the Scriptures in any way that would distinguish them from their unbelieving cohorts in the secular world.

I avoid the subject of theology with TEs and shun the subject with secular evolutionists because Christian theism is mocked and ridiculed shamelessly. The Scriptures clearly affirm the creation of Adam and Eve and descent from other lineages is unknown before the advent of Darwinism in Christian theism. Theologically I take my stand on YEC on Harmartology and if you doubt that you can see it for yourself here:

Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

That is after I debated the subject of Justification by Faith with a Catholic college student:

Is justification by faith alone?

My interest in the subject of origins came from over a decade of study on the subject of Christian Apologetics and a passion for expositional Bible study. Not a single TE on here can say the same or anything close so keep that in mind when you tell me I have abandoned theology, you don't know what you are talking about.

This whole I'm rubber your clue approach is as fallacious as the contrived homology arguments evolutionists use for ERVs and the fossils.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Willtor]

Nonsense, I debated shernren on the theological issues and he did not make a single theological point. He called some of his generalities theological but they weren't anything resembling theology, they were careless rationalizations. I have yet to see a valid theological point raised by a TE and what is more I have never seen then defend the Scriptures in any way that would distinguish them from their unbelieving cohorts in the secular world.

As to whether Shernren made theological points, he certainly did. For one, he decoupled the infallibility of Scripture from the literal interpretation of Genesis. He also interpreted particular relevant passages of Scripture such that they did not exclude evolution. I'd hardly call that a generality.

I avoid the subject of theology with TEs and shun the subject with secular evolutionists because Christian theism is mocked and ridiculed shamelessly. The Scriptures clearly affirm the creation of Adam and Eve and descent from other lineages is unknown before the advent of Darwinism in Christian theism. Theologically I take my stand on YEC on Harmartology and if you doubt that you can see it for yourself here:

Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

That is after I debated the subject of Justification by Faith with a Catholic college student:

Is justification by faith alone?

If you avoid the subject of theology with TE's, then you have a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course you don't see TE's talking about theology because you avoid us when we do.

My interest in the subject of origins came from over a decade of study on the subject of Christian Apologetics and a passion for expositional Bible study. Not a single TE on here can say the same or anything close so keep that in mind when you tell me I have abandoned theology, you don't know what you are talking about.

You can't be serious. Do you really believe that you are the only one in this thread who has studied the Bible for 10 years?

Mark, you are sticking your head in the sand. Your whole view seems to stem from the idea that TE's don't know the Bible, or take it seriously. It's one thing if you want to tell yourself that, but you're leading other people astray when you say as much in other places. The other YEC's listen to what you say. You have a responsibility to be honest.

This whole I'm rubber your clue approach is as fallacious as the contrived homology arguments evolutionists use for ERVs and the fossils.

Have a nice day
Mark

I don't know what "rubber my clue" is.

 

[mark kennedy]

As to whether Shernren made theological points, he certainly did. For one, he decoupled the infallibility of Scripture from the literal interpretation of Genesis. He also interpreted particular relevant passages of Scripture such that they did not exclude evolution. I'd hardly call that a generality.

Liberal theology is nothing more then philosophical naturalism put in vaguely theological language. What he did was abandon the Scriptures in favor of the secular philosophy he substituted it for. Essential doctrine based on sound exegesis and credible Christian scholarship were at the heart of my position and he never addressed Biblical or theological issues once. Instead he moved purposely to a non-literal interpretation and argued in circles around it. I strongly emphasized the Hamartiology of Genesis 3, Romans 5 and he simply argued around it.

What he did was to abandon the authority of Scripture and any literal rendering of the requisite proof texts. That is fallacious philosophically and flawed with regards to Christian theism but you got one thing right, it's classic liberal theology.

If you avoid the subject of theology with TE's, then you have a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course you don't see TE's talking about theology because you avoid us when we do.

In two posts meant to make a point that you do argue theology and have yet to make a single reference to anything other then liberal theology. That is what liberals do, they simply redefine everything including God, sin and salvation and pretend it's somehow Christian. What really gets me is that they convince actual Christians that they really do represent the Christian religion.

You can't be serious. Do you really believe that you are the only one in this thread who has studied the Bible for 10 years?

Then you should know that Paul, Jesus, Luke and Peter held to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Mark, you are sticking your head in the sand. Your whole view seems to stem from the idea that TE's don't know the Bible, or take it seriously. It's one thing if you want to tell yourself that, but you're leading other people astray when you say as much in other places. The other YEC's listen to what you say. You have a responsibility to be honest.

The actual fact is that I argued against universal common descent in the secular forums before there was an Origins Theology forum. I argued effectively and often from peer reviewed scientific literature for the simple fact that they were oblivious to the theology of YEC. When things did get going here the TEs showed themselves unable and unwilling to defend their views theologically.

If you think for one minute that I have to hid from the liberal theology that is being passed for a real argument you are about to find out different.

I don't know what "rubber my clue" is.

It's where you mimic my argument just reversing it, it's invariably due to the lack of one on your part.

 

[Willtor]

Liberal theology is nothing more then philosophical naturalism put in vaguely theological language. What he did was abandon the Scriptures in favor of the secular philosophy he substituted it for. Essential doctrine based on sound exegesis and credible Christian scholarship were at the heart of my position and he never addressed Biblical or theological issues once. Instead he moved purposely to a non-literal interpretation and argued in circles around it. I strongly emphasized the Hamartiology of Genesis 3, Romans 5 and he simply argued around it.

What he did was to abandon the authority of Scripture and any literal rendering of the requisite proof texts. That is fallacious philosophically and flawed with regards to Christian theism but you got one thing right, it's classic liberal theology.

I didn't say it was classic liberal theology.

He did not abandon Scripture any more than you did. Nor did he consider himself a liberal. In fact, if you read his posts, you will see that he raises the nominally liberal points and disputes them.

In two posts meant to make a point that you do argue theology and have yet to make a single reference to anything other then liberal theology. That is what liberals do, they simply redefine everything including God, sin and salvation and pretend it's somehow Christian. What really gets me is that they convince actual Christians that they really do represent the Christian religion.

If, by liberal theology, you mean theistic evolution, then yes. If you mean something besides that, then you are pretty far of the mark, Mark.

Then you should know that Paul, Jesus, Luke and Peter held to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I believe this is one of the points in dispute.

The actual fact is that I argued against universal common descent in the secular forums before there was an Origins Theology forum. I argued effectively and often from peer reviewed scientific literature for the simple fact that they were oblivious to the theology of YEC. When things did get going here the TEs showed themselves unable and unwilling to defend their views theologically.

Peer reviewed scientific literature doesn't have theology in it. Given that you didn't understand Shernren's theological arguments, or the lack of theology in the scientific literature, it looks like you don't know a theological (vs. non-theological) argument when you see one.

If you think for one minute that I have to hid from the liberal theology that is being passed for a real argument you are about to find out different.

I don't think you have hid from liberal theology, Mark (although you might have). I think you have hid from anything that might support the idea that people besides you have studied the Bible and legitimately come to different conclusions from you regarding whether evolution is contrary to it.

It's where you mimic my argument just reversing it, it's invariably due to the lack of one on your part.

Ah. So you did not read my post, either.

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't say it was classic liberal theology.

I did, when you abandon the Scriptures in favor of philosophical naturalism that's the essence of classic liberal theology. The real issue is the supernatural aspects of Scripture and they reject the miracles or ignore them.

He did not abandon Scripture any more than you did. Nor did he consider himself a liberal. In fact, if you read his posts, you will see that he raises the nominally liberal points and disputes them.

I did some pretty extensive expositions of the relevant texts, particularly Romans, he just simply contradicted me. That is in addition to the many substantive quotes he ignored as well. The New Testament teaches a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis and that has profound theological implications. Liberals uniformly deny this and while it would have been more fun refuting him on the scientific evidence his arguments went into circles early and spiraled into philosophical circles early and often.

If, by liberal theology, you mean theistic evolution, then yes. If you mean something besides that, then you are pretty far of the mark, Mark.

There isn't a dimes worth of difference.

I believe this is one of the points in dispute.

Not one of the points, the clear, distinct and intended meaning of the texts. We are not talking about one or two taken out of context but the uniform testimony of the New Testament authors. That in addition to the fact that the creation of Adam and Eve as it relates to the fall of man makes this nothing more then you contradicting the Scriptures in defense of a secular philosophy.

Peer reviewed scientific literature doesn't have theology in it. Given that you didn't understand Shernren's theological arguments, or the lack of theology in the scientific literature, it looks like you don't know a theological (vs. non-theological) argument when you see one.

Darwinism is unscientific for the same reason. shernren had no theological argument and as you said, ' he decoupled the infallibility of Scripture from the literal interpretation of Genesis.'. Which makes my point for me, infallibility is just another word for authority and reliability with regards to historical and doctrinal matters. Anything you guys don't want to accept is figurative leading to an aimless rationalization of the clear, consistent testimony of the Scriptures. You just gave it away too early.

I don't think you have hid from liberal theology, Mark (although you might have). I think you have hid from anything that might support the idea that people besides you have studied the Bible and legitimately come to different conclusions from you regarding whether evolution is contrary to it.

I tried that approach but the mark of Theistic Evolutionists is that they attack creationists, personally, forcefully and constantly. That kind of animosity is not an accident, it's the heart of the emphasis. It would be different if it were not at the heart of every post they make.

Ah. So you did not read my post, either.

Of course I did, it's not that hard. You just keep arguing in circle around the same fallacious assertions.