Creationist Arguments Against ERV's

[Aman777]

Aman is big on claims, not so much with the evidence to support the same.

Have you noticed that NO ONE has been able to refute my empirical (testable) historic evidence which confirms Scripture by showing that the FIRST Humans arrived SUDDENLY on Planet Earth some 10-12k years ago?

Now, it's your time to show us that History is Wrong. I don't think you can since the evidence is clear and cannot be changed, like the False Theory of Evolution can and has been several times. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

If we inherited DNA from Adam, then we should also have Adam's pre-integration sites, but we don't. Therefore, the claim is falsified.

That must be your mantra. I have answered this several times but you don't like my answer because it totally DESTROYS the Lie of Evolution which Falsely teaches that Humans magically evolved from the common ancestor of Apes, who did NOT evolve from the water until Billions of years AFTER the common ancestor of ALL Humans (Adam) was made.

IF you haven't noticed, I have stopped answering your misunderstanding on other boards. It seems to do NO good to tell anyone who worships Evolutionism the Truth because they have eyes which cannot see. God Bless you

 

[Loudmouth]

That must be your mantra. I have answered this several times but you don't like my answer because it totally DESTROYS the Lie of Evolution which Falsely teaches that Humans magically evolved from the common ancestor of Apes, who did NOT evolve from the water until Billions of years AFTER the common ancestor of ALL Humans (Adam) was made.

Verses in religious books do not refute anything.

IF

you haven't noticed, I have stopped answering your misunderstanding on other boards. It seems to do NO good to tell anyone who worships Evolutionism the Truth because they have eyes which cannot see. God Bless you

We can't see your evidence because you have none.

 

[florida2]

Have you noticed that NO ONE has been able to refute my empirical (testable) historic evidence which confirms Scripture by showing that the FIRST Humans arrived SUDDENLY on Planet Earth some 10-12k years ago?

Except that modern humans evolved about 200,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human

Now, it's your time to show us that History is Wrong. I don't think you can since the evidence is clear and cannot be changed, like the False Theory of Evolution can and has been several times.

Quotes from the Bible aren't scientific evidence.

Amen?

No.

 

[bhsmte]

Have you noticed that NO ONE has been able to refute my empirical (testable) historic evidence which confirms Scripture by showing that the FIRST Humans arrived SUDDENLY on Planet Earth some 10-12k years ago?

Now, it's your time to show us that History is Wrong. I don't think you can since the evidence is clear and cannot be changed, like the False Theory of Evolution can and has been several times. Amen?

No one on this site has been refuted more than you aman. Congrats.

 

[Aman777]

1. Except that modern humans evolved about 200,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human

2. Quotes from the Bible aren't scientific evidence.

1. IF we were modern Humans 200k years ago, the WHY did we wait for 190k years before we planted the first crop? Humans (descendants of Adam) ate plants and Adam farmed with NO evolution, but the sons of God (prehistoric people) ate meat they could catch to take home to the Cave. You are confused because you THINK prehistoric people were Humans (descendants of Adam). This is False since Adam was made from the dust and prehistoric people evolved from the common ancestor of Apes.

2. The evidence is in the Scientific Facts, some of which are just now being discovered, which are listed in Genesis. NO man of the time could have possibly known that it was Millions of years AFTER the Big Bang before the first Stars lit up, since was only recently discovered by Space Telescopes.

Genesis correct shows that it was on the 3rd Day when the beginning of our Cosmos occurred. Gen 2:4...AND...Gen 1:16 correctly shows that the first Stars of our Cosmos did NOT light up until the 4th Day. Woops, did God reveal Himself with His superior knowledge in Genesis? Amen. Want more?

 

[Aman777]

No one on this site has been refuted more than you aman. Congrats.

Many people think the same as you but NONE of you has been able to show evidence that you have refuted me. The reason is simple. I support what I write with Scripture and NONE of you can refute (prove wrong) God, the Holy Spirit, since He is the Author of the Bible and ALSO the Spirit of Truth. Since your view is opposite of God's Truth, you will have a hard time convincing us that YOU are smarter or more Truthful than God. Amen? Amen.

 

[crjmurray]

No one on this site has been refuted more than you aman. Congrats.

It really is an impressive feat.

 

[florida2]

1. IF we were modern Humans 200k years ago, the WHY did we wait for 190k years before we planted the first crop?

Humans were hunter-gatherers before then. Developments in social structures, tool technology, domestication of plants and animals and possibly changes in climate led humans to start to settle in areas rather than roam around, though the exact reasons for this are not completely clear, though it's a fascinating area of study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory#Stone_Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture

Humans (descendants of Adam) ate plants and Adam farmed with NO evolution, but the sons of God (prehistoric people) ate meat they could catch to take home to the Cave. You are confused because you THINK prehistoric people were Humans (descendants of Adam). This is False since Adam was made from the dust and prehistoric people evolved from the common ancestor of Apes.

Now you're making unsubstantiated claims. Where's your scientific evidence?

2. The evidence is in the Scientific Facts, some of which are just now being discovered, which are listed in Genesis. NO man of the time could have possibly known that it was Millions of years AFTER the Big Bang before the first Stars lit up, since was only recently discovered by Space Telescopes.

What might these facts be?

Genesis correct shows that it was on the 3rd Day when the beginning of our Cosmos occurred. Gen 2:4...AND...Gen 1:16 correctly shows that the first Stars of our Cosmos did NOT light up until the 4th Day. Woops, did God reveal Himself with His superior knowledge in Genesis? Amen. Want more?

So do you think the Earth, night and day and the seas were formed before the Sun?

 

[Doveaman]

You have never demonstrated that it was a super-natural event.

What evidence would you expect to find if it was super-natural?

So is Santa Claus delivering presents to every child in a single night.

Santa Clause has been demonstrated to be false. The virgin birth and the resurrection has not.

Do you really think that the simple proclamation that something is supernatural makes all of the evidence go away?

That depends. Is it Jesus making the proclamation?

Evidence doesn't prove anything one way or the other if it's a super-natural event. If Eve was indeed super-naturally created from the cells of Adam, the only explanation science can offer is common descent because that is where the natural evidence leads. Common descent would be false, however. Scientists have to delude themselves so as not to violate their scientific principles. Super-natural truths must be ignored.

If you were on a jury, would you be convinced to find the defendant not guilty if the defense attorney said the crime was a supernatural event, so the evidence should just be ignored?

That depends. Is Jesus the defense attorney?

That's a dogmatic belief, not an explanation.

Re-creation with modification is an explanation when we take both the ERV observation and biblical history into account.

It's not my fault that you choose to ignore the history.

 

[Doveaman]

Humans were hunter-gatherers before then. Developments in social structures, tool technology, domestication of plants and animals and possibly changes in climate led humans to start to settle in areas rather than roam around, though the exact reasons for this are not completely clear, though it's a fascinating area of study.

The simple answer is that the dumb prehistoric humans were hunter gatherers before they went extinct, and the developments in social structures, tool technology, domestication of plants and animals began with the creation of Adam and his descendants a few thousand years ago.

 

[Aggie]

Responding to the OP: This is a very good explanation, but there is a comment I'd like to make to one of your rebuttals:

There is another argument that makes a much stronger case, IMHO. The creationist story goes that after the "Fall", mutations built up in the ERV's which transformed them into retrovirus producing factories. Evolution describes quite a different scenario. Evolution proposes that ERV's were as close to be infectious at the time of their insertion, and have only become less infectious since.

That actually makes for a testable prediction. If we were to create a consensus sequence of recent HERV-K insertions, what does each predict? Creationism predicts that a consensus sequence, which removes accumulated mutations, should not produce infectious viral particles. Evolution predicts that a consensus sequence can produce infectious particles since it is closest to being the original viral sequence.

It shouldn't produce an actual virus, but if this creationist argument were correct, it would still produce something that's much more similar to an actual virus than modern-day ERVs are. The reason is that if modern-day ERVs are descended from the same endogenous elements that gave rise to modern-day viruses, that comment ancestor would presumably have had a form that's intermediate between its two descendants. It's the same reason why the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is more chimpanzee-like than modern humans.

It sounds like the details of the situation are still different from what this creationist argument would predict, but you might want to be a little be more specific about how the consensus sequence differs from what we'd expect to find in a common ancestor of viruses and ERVs.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You don't accept God's evidence but prefer instead man's changeable views. The problem is that Science has NO idea HOW or WHEN we magically changed from prehistoric to Human intelligence. When I present empirical historic evidence which you cannot explain, you simply claim it doesn't mean anything and then violate the 9th Commandment by saying i haven't presented any. Amen?

According to Harvard University biological anthropologist Richard Wrangham: Our hominid ancestors could never have eaten enough raw food to support our large, calorie-hungry brains. The secret to our evolution, he says, is cooking. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cooking-up-bigger-brains/

 

[joshua 1 9]

If we inherited DNA from Adam, then we should also have Adam's pre-integration sites, but we don't. Therefore, the claim is falsified.

The theory is that the Godly descendants of Adam intermarried with the ungodly heathen or what the Hebrews called gentiles. Genesis 6:1-4."the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them." This was the reason for the flood.

 

[SteveB28]

What evidence would you expect to find if it was super-natural?

Exactly. The supernatural is entirely evidence-free! Surely that's the entire point?

Santa Clause has been demonstrated to be false.

No. Using the same construct that you would use for your God, it is 'not possible to prove a negative'. Please show how you would prove that Santa is false.

The virgin birth and the resurrection has not.

And again,mint is not possible to prove a negative.

Evidence doesn't prove anything one way or the other if it's a super-natural event.

Yes, you can make any fanciful claim, describe it as "supernatural" and it will be impossible to either prove or disprove. Well done.

It's not my fault that you choose to ignore the history.

You would equate something akin to The Iliad as "history"!?

 

[Loudmouth]

1. IF we were modern Humans 200k years ago, the WHY did we wait for 190k years before we planted the first crop?

For the same reason that we waited 200k years to build the first airplane.

Humans (descendants of Adam) ate plants and Adam farmed with NO evolution, but the sons of God (prehistoric people) ate meat they could catch to take home to the Cave. You are confused because you THINK prehistoric people were Humans (descendants of Adam). This is False since Adam was made from the dust and prehistoric people evolved from the common ancestor of Apes.

All empty assertions with no evidence to back them.

2. The evidence is in the Scientific Facts, some of which are just now being discovered, which are listed in Genesis. NO man of the time could have possibly known that it was Millions of years AFTER the Big Bang before the first Stars lit up, since was only recently discovered by Space Telescopes.

Again, all empty assertions. You produce twisted translations of texts that don't say any of the things you claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

It shouldn't produce an actual virus, but if this creationist argument were correct, it would still produce something that's much more similar to an actual virus than modern-day ERVs are.

Creationists are claiming that the original sequence of ERV's had nothing to do with being a virus, that those sequences were actually beneficial to humans. It is only through mutations that these sequences are becoming viruses. Therefore, a consensus sequence where the mutations are removed should be the least virus-like sequence out of all of them.

The reason is that if modern-day ERVs are descended from the same endogenous elements that gave rise to modern-day viruses, that comment ancestor would presumably have had a form that's intermediate between its two descendants. It's the same reason why the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is more chimpanzee-like than modern humans.

As far as functioning as a virus, the creationists argue that the original ERV sequence did not produce viruses.

It sounds like the details of the situation are still different from what this creationist argument would predict, but you might want to be a little be more specific about how the consensus sequence differs from what we'd expect to find in a common ancestor of viruses and ERVs.

We would expect a consensus sequence to capture the sequence needed for a functioning virus, if evolution is true. Conserved sequence between ERV's would indicate bases that have been selected for their beneficial function as part of the viral genome.

 

[Larniavc]

Your problem is that you are relying on natural observations to explain a super-natural event.

What are the chances of a man being born to a virgin and rising from the dead?

Zero?

 

[Doveaman]

Exactly. The supernatural is entirely evidence-free! Surely that's the entire point?

It is only evidence-free for to those who have never experienced the supernatural or are simply ignorant of it.

The existence of theists going back even before the beginning of recorded history is evidence for the supernatural. The reason why theism exists is because of our experience of the supernatural.

It's not our fault if you have never experienced the supernatural or are simply ignorant of it. That's your fault.

No. Using the same construct that you would use for your God, it is 'not possible to prove a negative'. Please show how you would prove that Santa is false.

By showing that fat old men cannot climb chimneys with a bag full of toys over their shoulder.

And again,mint is not possible to prove a negative.

Yes, you can make any fanciful claim, describe it as "supernatural" and it will be impossible to either prove or disprove. Well done.

The claims are based on the eyewitness testimonies of those who observed the virgin birth and the resurrection, and by those of us who experience the supernatural effects of God in our daily lives.

Ignorance is not an excuse:

*For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.* -- (Rom 1:20).

You would equate something akin to The Iliad as "history"!?

Equating biblical history with The Iliad demonstrates your ignorance of biblical history.

 

[Doveaman]

Zero?

It is zero based purely on the observation of natural processes. It is the observation of purely natural processes that leads to your delusion of supernatural processes. You are deluding yourself by restricting yourself to purely natural observations.