Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design-Gallup Poll

[Colter]

The six days of creation have not impeded the proclamation of the Gospel, it's only been in the last 150 years that it has been seriously questioned whether a 'day' in Genesis 1 is in fact a 'day'. I looked it up, 'day' still means a regular 24 hour day. The truth is there is no serious question about what Genesis 1 says and it says six days.

Especially relevant to the creation of life and man:

In him was life, and the life was the light of humanity. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. (John 1:4,5)​

If Genesis 1 is simply unbelievable why would I believe John 1? Jesus is proclaimed Creator obviously, but Creator of what exactly?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Speaking for myself, I see John 1:4,5 as a true philosophical, spiritual statement about the creator Son. I've never believed the Genesis account of creation, the fall of man and Gods regret for having created man, leading to his abortion of the entire earth. These fragmented stories were intended for the child like mind of another age, but unfortunately religion has no critically corrective process for sorting out the older untenable elements of it's sacred writings. For the believer, born into a readymade religion, he or she just sort of "works it out" in their own heart. For the educated unbeliever these stories prevent them from ever getting to the other books.

 

[mark kennedy]

Speaking for myself, I see John 1:4,5 as a true philosophical, spiritual statement about the creator Son. I've never believed the Genesis account of creation, the fall of man and Gods regret for having created man, leading to his abortion of the entire earth. These fragmented stories were intended for the child like mind of another age, but unfortunately religion has no critically corrective process for sorting out the older untenable elements of it's sacred writings. For the believer, born into a readymade religion, he or she just sort of "works it out" in their own heart. For the educated unbeliever these stories prevent them from ever getting to the other books.

Surely you realize that the Incarnation has been one of the primary focuses of Christian Apologetics down through the centuries. I dare say it's over more then philosophical differences, Christ is not just the Creator but the source of life in the passage. This goes even beyond the Genesis 1 account of Creation to the very source of life, thus God Incarnate.

There is no natural argument for either, some things only God can do.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Colter]

Surely you realize that the Incarnation has been one of the primary focuses of Christian Apologetics down through the centuries. I dare say it's over more then philosophical differences, Christ is not just the Creator but the source of life in the passage. This goes even beyond the Genesis 1 account of Creation to the very source of life, thus God Incarnate.

There is no natural argument for either, some things only God can do.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark,

I see Genesis as a collation of elements from the ancient story of Adam and Eves arrival on a populated earth, their first week surveying the garden home which had been made ready for them by the faithful inhabitants, then the disastrous yield to the persuasion's of the crafty beast leading to the loss of immortality specifically for the pair.

The fact of the incarnation of Christ was not founded on the accuracy of the creation narrative but perhaps on the failure of Adam and Eve's ministry mission to a fallen world.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Yet they have never directly observed or demonstrated that a viral infection of the human germline is possible, let alone a definitive answer. The closest they have ever came is the Phoenix virus.

Mark, that's like saying that because we've never observed an asteroid impact on mars, we can't conclude that all those craters are from impacts. We've even resurrected a live virus, as you yourself acknowlege with the phoenix virus.

Except that the ERVs clearly show common descent.

ERVs are broken reading frames, nothing more. You do know what a reading frame is right?

and more ERV denial:

The ERVs as genetic markers are based on commonality.

Others have shown you why it is clear they show common descent (including fellow Christians). If they were just "broken reading frames", then the phoenix virus wouldn't have worked. You've agreed that you are not an expert, and so I don't see why you think you have a leg to stand on with your ERV denial. Do you deny that ERVs are previously viral DNA?

​

They can't admit it because the mutations on that level would be at lethal levels, it's a formula for extinction and they know it.

Experts agree that the mutations that likely allowed us to evolve from earlier apes would (were) certainly not lethal. You, as a non-expert appear to be mistakenly disagreeing with the experts.

That's an understatement, you haven't a clue but you feel totally justified in making condescending remarks without the slightest regard for the large body of scientific work you pretend to know. Those who don't know have no idea how much they don't understand so they feel justified in correcting anyone who contradicts their opinions.

And you do? How could you possibly have any idea what they know, when you aren't an expert, and have shown time and again that you don't understand the field? I have enough Christian humily to understand that I'm not an expert. You too have agreed that you are not an expert, yet you imply above that you know more than the experts.


​

Still waiting for a retraction.......

Still waiting for the counter argument.

When an argument is made without support, a counter argument not needed until the support is given. In at least 5 cases, below, you haven't supported your arguments. Come on Mark, this is basic logic here. Like you had in college, remember?

When's the last time you researched anything? Do you read the scientific literature or go straight for the Talk Origins arguments.

Um, today. I research stuff all the time. And when I do, I don't ignore the papers that disagree with me, and I make sure I understand the actual position of the experts.

Mark wrote, in the same post:

On the bright side you managed to get through an entire post without a single flame, I'm proud of you.

and

I'm not impressed and your just using another ad hominem fallacy

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.....

I'll tell you what, since you've bent over backwards to be civil I'm going to tell you the single strongest argument I've seen for Darwinian evolution. It's the Chromosome 2 fusion and I have absolutely no explanation for what that TTTAAAGGG sequence is doing there.

Yes, that's an interesting thing. Thanks for sharing that. Other interesting genetics are the broken GULOP gene, our broken tail genes on chromosomes 5 and 6, the brain boosting mutations found on genes 1, 8, and others, and the fact that the amino acid redundancy also forms a nested hierarchy confirmation the tree of life, among others.


For reference:

Claims that Mark has refused to support, which we are waiting for him to support or retract:

1. Mark claimed ERVs were from a single massive germline invasion 20 million years ago, then switched to saying it was "the primary" invasion, after the actual case of many infections ranging from 3 to 50 million years ago was shown. (Posts #104 &107)

Mark said :


​

a massive germline invasion just when supposed ape ancestors are diverging into all the major primate taxonomic categories.
​

and later clarified that to be "20 million years ago".

So, do you retract that or not? A better set of dates are those shown by the experts, such as those I've given before.

OK, so it sounds like you are saying there are many dates. So you agree that you disagree with your own statement about "a single massive invasion around 20 million years ago"?

​

There's no one else listening, I'm not impressed and your just using another ad hominem fallacy to fill in where your understanding stops, which invariably is early and often.

you "response" has nothing to do with what I wrote. As far as the ad hom goes, I've asked several times to be shown where you think I'm doing that, and nothing but crickets, so it appears to me that you have no basis for that, like so many others.

2. Mark claimed that "evolutionists" "consider themselves experts because they insult creationists. " in post #106. Still waiting for support for that.


​

Every statement you make is directed at me and generally, abandons all other topics

​

So now are you claiming that I claim to be an expert because I attack you? First, that's absurd because I've explicitly stated to you that I'm not an expert, and certainly have never gave any reason whatsoever for being an expert (since I'm not).

Still waiting for a retraction.......

You don't even know the argument but your smarter then creationists because you share the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians.

and

All TEs have to do is be as scathing as possible toward any literal or creationist view and they are automatically experts.

​

Sounds like you are just repeating the claim instead of supporting or retracting it.

As before, you have a post of bluster, unsupported statements, irrelevant distractions, puffery, and vitriol.

In Christ-

Papias

Ad hominem fallacy binge, that's how I know you have nothing else.

3. Sounds like another claim. So you claim I'm using an ad hominem. Please show where I said that your argument was wrong because you personnally are a bad person, or again, retract this claim as well.
​

When are you going to learn, I don't jump through hoops for you. I certainly won't chase you pedantic, fallacious rhetoric in circles.

I'm not asking you to jump through hoops or chase anything in circles. I'm simply asking you to have a normal, rational discussion, which includes providing support for claims made (or retracting them).


​

4. Earlier in this thread you claimed that creationism was growing, and ignored that atheistic evolution was growing. Just a few days ago, you repeated that on another thread, after being shown the most recent Gallup poll here (which shows the opposite of your claim). Do you care to retract those claims too now, based on the evidence from Gallup, or not?

Since Darwinians backed off the full court press I've seen it statistically and in my acquaintances with other Christians who are interested in the subject matter.

OK, then how about a link? Or is this just your gut feel?

Hang in there, this whole creation vs. evolution thing is almost run it's course. The Creationists have ministries thriving in the wake of the controversy and the Ivory tower Ivy League Darwinians believe they are unassailable.

So, are you saying that evolution denying creationism is growing? It sounds like it from what you wrote, yet we both know that the data from your own source says the opposite.

Experts who lie almost constantly.

5. Sounds like a new claim. Can you show where they have lied almost constantly?


In Christ Jesus-

Papias

 

[Angelquill]

Why is it that, if you believe that God created us in our present form, it is assumed that you also must believe in a young earth?
How are the two connected?

 

[mark kennedy]

Why is it that, if you believe that God created us in our present form, it is assumed that you also must believe in a young earth?
How are the two connected?

The age of the earth is irrelevant and Darwinians know it. All we know about the age of the earth from Scripture is that God created the heavens and the earth 'in the beginning'. So they argue about geology, so win lose or draw nothing substantive is at stake. The creation of man and the history of life on this planet is another matter. The genealogies are another matter, The Scriptures have relative dates throughout the timeline.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, that's like saying that because we've never observed an asteroid impact on mars, we can't conclude that all those craters are from impacts. We've even resurrected a live virus, as you yourself acknowlege with the phoenix virus.

I acknowledge that they got a reading frame working, that's about it. Just a couple of frameshifts, which means it's functionally useless. There's really nothing else to acknowledge because that's all they did. What's next, an argument from knock out genes?

Others have shown you why it is clear they show common descent (including fellow Christians). If they were just "broken reading frames", then the phoenix virus wouldn't have worked. You've agreed that you are not an expert, and so I don't see why you think you have a leg to stand on with your ERV denial. Do you deny that ERVs are previously viral DNA?

Others talk in circles around what ERVs actually are, most of them know absolutely nothing about genetics or the life sciences. If they do, they never use it in their arguments.

What happens is there are trollers, like yourself, who will just hurl insults. After a while a scientists of some sort will congratulate them for insulting creationists and they think that makes them smart about science. They are all but gone now but sfs stills posts and there's some crazy Biology professor who likes to pop in from time to time. The truth is getting a substantive discussion is like pulling teeth with secular types and TEs simple don't have a clue. They read nothing, study less and are bound and determined to steer the conversation down a dead end with no outlet.

Without fallacious arguments you would have nothing to talk about, it's not your fault, you bought into the spirit of the age. I actually feel sorry for you.

Experts agree that the mutations that likely allowed us to evolve from earlier apes would (were) certainly not lethal. You, as a non-expert appear to be mistakenly disagreeing with the experts.

That's because most of the variation in the DNA is mutations. The second shameless error in this post alone. No one thinks mutations are adaptive, beneficial effects are the only viable cause. Invariably the abandon the life sciences and the Mendelian genetics in favor of ad hominem arguments.

That's what actually fascinates me about you guys, you pontificate science with an air of superiority and you don't know as much as a high school kid does about the actual life sciences. Learn the basics and then if you want to rummage through the protein coding gene graveyard let me know.

Just in case you are actually thinking, what is a protein coding gene. Then tell me why an ERV is a protein coding gene, then we can talk about viral germline invasions that never happen to humans and yet are considered responsible for 8% of the human genome.

And you do? How could you possibly have any idea what they know, when you aren't an expert, and have shown time and again that you don't understand the field? I have enough Christian humily to understand that I'm not an expert. You too have agreed that you are not an expert, yet you imply above that you know more than the experts.

You call it humility to insult fellow believers to please atheistic materialists? I've read an enormous amount of literature on the subject. PHD on here are absolutely dumbfounded when you ask them to find a single beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene. The scientific status quo invariably lies about the facts, I've seen at least a dozen articles saying that the human and chimpanzee genomes are 98% the same, something that is conclusively been proven to be false.

When an argument is made without support, a counter argument not needed until the support is given. In at least 5 cases, below, you haven't supported your arguments. Come on Mark, this is basic logic here. Like you had in college, remember?

You know what doesn't warrant a response? Fallacious logic. I've been to college, finishing up a Bachelors this spring. I'm a Liberal Arts major so I've studied Biology, chemistry, sociology and a lot of philosophy. If you think science has anything to do with this you are exactly what Darwinians want you to be, a social mercenary who works for free.

If you actually study evolution you will invariable go back to Herbert Spencer, the Darwins of course, Comte, Dewey, Pierce and some others. Evolution and selection are simply terminology, they have no mechanisms that are an instrumental cause.

Your a Catholic for crying out loud, why aren't you reading Aristotle? The synthesis that made the Roman Catholic church the unassailable political power for a thousand years came from Aristotle. Art, science, religion, that synthesis could incorporate anything, our Republic was modeled after them except democracy turned the whole thing upside down. Darwinism is metaphysics and it's a lousy system. Aristotle has the best metaphysics in history, a thousand years as the intellectual impetus for Rome is one heck of a track record. Your dabbling in Darwinism when the wisdom of the ancients lays fallow.

I'll tell you what, you have got to be bored sitting around dreaming up insults. Do you know who the Medici family was? Look them up, there are some dynamite documentaries out there about them.

Um, today. I research stuff all the time. And when I do, I don't ignore the papers that disagree with me, and I make sure I understand the actual position of the experts.

Because the only thing you can trust them to tell the truth about are the actual phenomenon. I know exactly what the experts believe and it has nothing to do with the actual facts.

Yes, that's an interesting thing. Thanks for sharing that. Other interesting genetics are the broken GULOP gene, our broken tail genes on chromosomes 5 and 6, the brain boosting mutations found on genes 1, 8, and others, and the fact that the amino acid redundancy also forms a nested hierarchy confirmation the tree of life, among others.

I think you mean the GULO gene, it produces vitamin C in some organisms but in the primate and human genomes it's broken. Broken in some of the same places because it's breakable there, they call them mutation hotspots.

Nothing confirms or denies a Darwinian tree of life, you either believe or you don't. If you don't believe God exists or you have some deistic ideas about God doing nothing after the initial creation it's the only alternative to God as the primary first cause.

You should be reading Aristotle, I promise you your going to love his ethics and metaphysics. Ask your parish priest about him, bet he has good things to say.

Mark claimed ERVs were from a single massive germline invasion 20 million years ago, then switched to saying it was "the primary" invasion, after the actual case of many infections ranging from 3 to 50 million years ago was shown.

Nonsense You really have no idea what a homology argument is do you?

a massive germline invasion just when supposed ape ancestors are diverging into all the major primate taxonomic categories and later clarified that to be "20 million years ago".

I actually have a few direct quotes, there is no way I'm doing your random research for you. Where is the evolutionary node for apes and monkeys? How many ERVs do they actually have in common? More importantly, do you even know what molecular clocks are?

Your rummaging through a dumpster here, why don't you go around front, get a table and have an actual meal.

So, do you retract that or not? A better set of dates are those shown by the experts, such as those I've given before.

No, the clutch phrase is actually, 'do you concede this point', the problem is you have no idea what we are talking about so you just talk in circles around it.

you "response" has nothing to do with what I wrote. As far as the ad hom goes, I've asked several times to be shown where you think I'm doing that, and nothing but crickets, so it appears to me that you have no basis for that, like so many others.

At most there are three people on CF that you can actually have a discussion about ERVs with and they can't make a single argument stick.

2. Mark claimed that "evolutionists" "consider themselves experts because they insult creationists.

No one cares, who are you talking to?

3. Sounds like another claim. So you claim I'm using an ad hominem. Please show where I said that your argument was wrong because you personnally are a bad person, or again, retract this claim as well.

You are using an ad hominem fallacy, a pointless empty insult unworthy of being considered an argument. That doesn't make you a bad person, it just means the smart thing to do would be to change the subject to something you actually know something about. A fallacy is an argument that never happened, like your equivocation of evolution and Darwinism, it's just an argument that never happened. Not good, not bad, just an argument that is like putting you fingers in your ears and singing Shana na na na.

I'm not asking you to jump through hoops or chase anything in circles. I'm simply asking you to have a normal, rational discussion, which includes providing support for claims made (or retracting them).

And I want you to get one basic fact straight, I don't care what it is, you can start with what a protein coding gene is because you are never going to have a clue about ERVs until you do.

4. Earlier in this thread you claimed that creationism was growing, and ignored that atheistic evolution was growing. Just a few days ago, you repeated that on another thread, after being shown the most recent Gallup poll here (which shows the opposite of your claim). Do you care to retract those claims too now, based on the evidence from Gallup, or not?

We talked about that and statistically the numbers did go up a couple of percentage points. Creation is essential Christian theism, Theistic Evolution is a philosophy that thinks it can dismiss Creation along with any miracles in Scripture they choose by calling it figurative.

So, are you saying that evolution denying creationism is growing? It sounds like it from what you wrote, yet we both know that the data from your own source says the opposite.

Sometimes I don't know who you think your arguing with, you must have invisible friends only you can see. That statement means absolutely nothing unless it's an insult aimed at me, it's called an ad hominem. Oh and BTW since your not listening anyway, an ad hominem can be a profoundly powerful argument. Unfortunately your obsessed with the fallacy.

I miss the Mega trolls, those guys were fun. I will miss Creation/Darwinism controversy but I guess all things must come to an end. They actually had a band of marauding flamers who swarmed discussion forums like Medieval barbarian hordes. They're gone now and unless you want to clean up after their party your just going to talking to an empty room.

I don't know why you won't let me help you. One post could tell you everything you need to know. I don't know if you like to think I'm lying or what your deal is but I can argue anyone to a stalemate. I don't mean evolutionists, creationists are as goofy as Darwinians about this stuff. There are maybe a half a dozen issues that exhaust the subject. This has nothing to do with science or theology but you have to know a little about both.

Anyway thanks for the exchange and you might want to read about Crick and Watson. I think it would do wonders for you if you had a clue what a protein coding gene is.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

Why is it that, if you believe that God created us in our present form, it is assumed that you also must believe in a young earth?
How are the two connected?

Hi angelquill,

I, of course, can't speak for others in this matter, but I can tell you why I would 'assume' such a thing.

I believe first of all that God is all powerful and is able to do things that seem impossible for man. That He can create in a young virgin woman living in the area of Jersualem a living being to be formed and to grow into a mature baby, without sperm having been within a million miles of that woman's womb ever in her entire life. Now, that's impossible, but I believe that God can do it.

That He can say to water to stand as a wall without any form of physical support and that wall will stand dozens of feet tall for hours as a sentinal. That too, is impossible, but I believe that God can do it.

That He can tell the sun to stand still in the sky and for several hours it will not move one hairsbreadth from its position until He commands it to continue in its course in the sky. That also is impossible, but I believe that God can do it.

Secondly, I believe that God created this realm for man. He had absolutely no other purpose in creating this realm of existence in which we live except as a good and perfect place for man to live. He didn't create this realm to run for millions and millions of years all by itself with stars and planets spinning through their courses in the heavens while He decided what He was going to do with it all.

Finally, I believe that God lowered himself to the intelligence of man when He caused the Scriptures to be written. They were written for man. They were written for man to understand and they were written in relatively simple terms to be understood by even the most simple man.

So, if I believe that God made this realm of existence for man, then its having sat around for millions of years before He created man in it, seems illogical to me. Because I believe that God can do the things that He says He can do and has done, then I have no problem believing that God can merely speak, "Let there be stars in the heavens.", and near instantly a gazillion stars stand where moments before there was nothing but black, inky nothingness. Because I believe that this is the awesome power, authority and wisdom that God holds - and that God created all this for man, then I have no problem believing that He created it all in six days just like he said.

The only reason that there is really any reason for an individual to believe differently, as far as I can tell, is because man says that it is impossible. Well, guess what? Man says that all of God's miracles are impossible. Man can't make a virgin pregnant without using human sperm. Man can't make water stand on its own without using some physical support. Man can't make the sun stand still in the sky. These are all impossible things.

Now, I have explained my understanding and whether or not you agree isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not God agrees. According to His word, He does agree.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Now, I have explained my understanding and whether or not you agree isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not God agrees. According to His word, He does agree.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I assume you have some special insight because it's customary to quote God when God has indeed spoken. Are you a prophet Ted?

 

[KEPLER]

The age of the earth is irrelevant and Darwinians know it. All we know about the age of the earth from Scripture is that God created the heavens and the earth 'in the beginning'. So they argue about geology, so win lose or draw nothing substantive is at stake. The creation of man and the history of life on this planet is another matter. The genealogies are another matter, The Scriptures have relative dates throughout the timeline.

Mark,

Darwinians don't argue about the age of the earth. That fight occurred in the generations prior to Darwin. See James Hutton, Charles Lyell, et al.

K

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,

Darwinians don't argue about the age of the earth.

The earliest criticisms of Darwinism was that he didn't give the earth enough time to cool, yes they do argue from and for the age of the earth.

That fight occurred in the generations prior to Darwin. See James Hutton, Charles Lyell, et al.

You mean guys like, 'Lamarck' who, 'was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention...He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species).

 

[KEPLER]

The earliest criticisms of Darwinism was that he didn't give the earth enough time to cool, yes they do argue from and for the age of the earth.



You mean guys like, 'Lamarck' who, 'was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention...He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species).

No, I mean guys like James Hutton and Charles Lyell.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, I mean guys like James Hutton and Charles Lyell.

Ok, you have my attention, would you care to elaborate?

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Mark, that's like saying that because we've never observed an asteroid impact on mars, we can't conclude that all those craters are from impacts. We've even resurrected a live virus, as you yourself acknowlege with the phoenix virus.

I acknowledge that they got a reading frame working, that's about it.

Which sounds like you are still denying that ERVs are from viruses. The evidence is clear that ERVs are from viruses, just as it is clear that impact craters are from impacts. Do you also deny that impact craters are from impacts?

Others have shown you why it is clear they show common descent (including fellow Christians). If they were just "broken reading frames", then the phoenix virus wouldn't have worked. You've agreed that you are not an expert, and so I don't see why you think you have a leg to stand on with your ERV denial. Do you deny that ERVs are previously viral DNA?

Others talk in circles around what ERVs actually are, most ........ feel sorry for you.

More empty trash talk without even answering the question. So I'll ask again: Do you deny that ERVs are previously viral DNA?


​

Experts agree that the mutations that likely allowed us to evolve from earlier apes would (were) certainly not lethal. You, as a non-expert appear to be mistakenly disagreeing with the experts.

That's because most of the variation in the DNA is mutations.

Of course it is - and obviously not lethal, or there would be no animals of any kind..

Invariably the abandon the life sciences and the Mendelian genetics in favor of ad hominem arguments.

News flash, mark - medelian genetics fully supports common descent. It's called the "modern synthesis".

I've been to college, finishing up a Bachelors this spring. I'm a Liberal Arts major so I've studied Biology, chemistry, sociology and a lot of philosophy.

Congratulations! What major?

I know exactly what the experts believe and it has nothing to do with the actual facts.

Really? Are you psychic? What is it that you think the experts believe that has nothing to do with the actual facts?

Yes, that's an interesting thing. Thanks for sharing that. Other interesting genetics are the broken GULOP gene, our broken tail genes on chromosomes 5 and 6, the brain boosting mutations found on genes 1, 8, and others, and the fact that the amino acid redundancy also forms a nested hierarchy confirmation the tree of life, among others.

I think you mean the GULO gene, it produces vitamin C in some organisms but in the primate and human genomes it's broken. Broken in some of the same places because it's breakable there, they call them mutation hotspots.

Nothing confirms or denies a Darwinian tree of life, you either believe or you don't.

The GULO Pseudogene (GULOP) confirms the primate tree of life because the mutations therin give the same nested hierarchy shown again and again in other ways. You can continue to deny this evidence if you like.

​

So, are you saying that evolution denying creationism is growing? It sounds like it from what you wrote, yet we both know that the data from your own source says the opposite.

That statement means absolutely nothing unless it's an insult aimed at me, it's called an ad hominem.

How is that an insult? I asked what you meant, and then talked about the data. I don't see any way that's an insult.

One post could tell you everything you need to know.

Go for it.

I can argue anyone to a stalemate....... I think it would do wonders for you if you had a clue what a protein coding gene is.

More empty trash talk.





For reference:

Claims that Mark has refused to support, which we are waiting for him to support or retract:

1. Mark claimed ERVs were from a single massive germline invasion 20 million years ago, then switched to saying it was "the primary" invasion, after the actual case of many infections ranging from 3 to 50 million years ago was shown. (Posts #104 &107)

Mark said :


​

a massive germline invasion just when supposed ape ancestors are diverging into all the major primate taxonomic categories.
​

and later clarified that to be "20 million years ago".

And you again claimed this, in your last response to me, post #127:
​

then we can talk about viral germline invasions that never happen to humans and yet are considered responsible for 8% of the human genome.

Still no support from Mark, just from trash talk. His latest response the below.

​

I actually have a few direct quotes, there is no way I'm doing your random research for you.

I only asking you to support the claim you made - just as any logical person would.


​

2. Mark claimed that "evolutionists" "consider themselves experts because they insult creationists. " in post #106. Still waiting for support for that.


​

Every statement you make is directed at me and generally, abandons all other topics

So now are you claiming that I claim to be an expert because I attack you? First, that's absurd because I've explicitly stated to you that I'm not an expert, and certainly have never gave any reason whatsoever for being an expert (since I'm not).

Still waiting for a retraction.......

​

All TEs have to do is be as scathing as possible toward any literal or creationist view and they are automatically experts.

Sounds like you are just repeating the claim instead of supporting or retracting it.
​

​

3. Sounds like another claim. So you claim I'm using an ad hominem. Please show where I said that your argument was wrong because you personnally are a bad person, or again, retract this claim as well.

And mark again claimed I'm using Ad Hom in his last response to me, 3 additional times (post #127) here:

You know what doesn't warrant a response? Fallacious logic. ..... you have got to be bored sitting around dreaming up insults. ......You are using an ad hominem fallacy, a pointless empty insult unworthy of being considered an argument.

I've asked for examples of me using fallacious logic (Ad Hom) on post after post on this thread, and you never back up your claim. So I'll wait for you to back this up, if you support your claims.



​

4. Earlier in this thread you claimed that creationism was growing, and ignored that atheistic evolution was growing. Just a few days ago, you repeated that on another thread, after being shown the most recent Gallup poll here (which shows the opposite of your claim). Do you care to retract those claims too now, based on the evidence from Gallup, or not?



Mark wrote:

Hang in there, this whole creation vs. evolution thing is almost run it's course. The Creationists have ministries thriving in the wake of the controversy and the Ivory tower Ivy League Darwinians believe they are unassailable.

​

Papias wrote:

So, are you saying that evolution denying creationism is growing? It sounds like it from what you wrote, yet we both know that the data from your own source says the opposite.

We talked about that and statistically the numbers did go up a couple of percentage points.

No mark, evolution denying creationism is either decreasing or holding steady, and atheistic materialism has increased from 9 to 19 points - more than doubling. So do you agree that your own data shows no increase in creationism, with atheistic materialism steadily increasing?

Here are the data again:

5.
​

Experts who lie almost constantly.


Sounds like a new claim. Can you show where they have lied almost constantly?


Still no support for your claim that the experts lie almost constantly.........


In Christ Jesus-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Which sounds like you are still denying that ERVs are from viruses. The evidence is clear that ERVs are from viruses, just as it is clear that impact craters are from impacts. Do you also deny that impact craters are from impacts?

I'm denying that 8% of the human genome is the result of germ line invasions, because it's impossible.

More empty trash talk without even answering the question. So I'll ask again: Do you deny that ERVs are previously viral DNA?

You got a nerve to accuse someone of talking trash but I'm just pointing out that ERV germ line invasions are extremely rare and dangerous. Bet you have no clue why.

Of course it is - and obviously not lethal, or there would be no animals of any kind..

Evolution is not the result of random mutations yet it happens on a vast scale. That means the genomic mechanisms can produce an adaptive trait without random copy errors. You took the Darwinian equivocation of mutations and adaptations hook, line and sinker. If you listen closely, you can hear the Darwinians laughing at you because most of them know it's bunk. I can't believe your that gullible.

News flash, mark - medelian genetics fully supports common descent. It's called the "modern synthesis".

Nonsense, the Modern Synthesis was templated over Mendelian Genetics and the most militant of Darwinians shunned Genetics for decades.

Congratulations! What major?

Thanks My Bachelors will be in Bible and Theology but I'm pretty much a Liberal Arts major.

Really? Are you psychic? What is it that you think the experts believe that has nothing to do with the actual facts?

I can read what they write, you should try it sometime.

The GULO Pseudogene (GULOP) confirms the primate tree of life because the mutations therin give the same nested hierarchy shown again and again in other ways. You can continue to deny this evidence if you like.

The GULO is a broken protein coding gene. I know you haven't the slightest interest but a little basic Biology would improve your arguments greatly.

How is that an insult? I asked what you meant, and then talked about the data. I don't see any way that's an insult.

No one is denying evolution, I just happen to be one of the few Creationists that doesn't take the bait and switch. This has nothing to do with Biology, it's an atheistic social theory known as Darwinism. It's useless as science and as a matter of fact, neo-darwinian social theory is useless as well. They have some convoluted mega-macro theory about how genes control behavior. Genes don't control behavior, they control how cells are built.

For reference:

Claims that Mark has refused to support, which we are waiting for him to support or retract:

Mark claimed ERVs were from a single massive germ line invasion 20 million years ago, then switched to saying it was "the primary" invasion, after the actual case of many infections ranging from 3 to 50 million years ago was shown.

You've been spouting that for so long you have forgotten that I was talking about Chimpanzee ERVs.

• The estimated age of full-length class II CERV elements ranges from 2 to 97 MY.
• CERV 30 (HERVK10) inserted into the chimpanzee genome about 2 MYA.
• CERV 36 (HERV K11D) have been transposably active for 25 my
• Full-length elements of CERV 1/PTERV1 the two subfamilies are 5 MY and 7.8 MY
• At least one subfamily was present in the lineage prior to the time chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (about 6 MYA).

CERV 2 elements were transpositionally active in the chimpanzee genome between 1.3 and 6.0 MYA. Thus, the majority of CERV 2 elements were biologically active after the divergence of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor.

We estimated the ages of two of the more abundant subfamilies by calculating the average of the pairwise distances between all sequences in each subfamily. The estimated ages of the two subfamilies were 21.9 MY and 14.1 MY, respectively.​

(Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses. Genome Biol. 2006)

Why is it that the most prolific posters never read the source material? I've tried to tell you these dates are notoriously unreliable, it would help if you did a little research once in a while.

2. Mark claimed that "evolutionists" "consider themselves experts because they insult creationists. " in post #106. Still waiting for support for that.

Always wondered who you were talking to in circles like that.

Sounds like you are just repeating the claim instead of supporting or retracting it.

No, just can't get you to learn the basics, guess it's just too much to ask.

3. Sounds like another claim. So you claim I'm using an ad hominem. Please show where I said that your argument was wrong because you personnally are a bad person, or again, retract this claim as well.

All you have talked about in this post is me, now you are talking about me in the third person and we are the only two in the discussion. That's either an ad hominem attack, or you need therapy.

I've asked for examples of me using fallacious logic (Ad Hom) on post after post on this thread, and you never back up your claim. So I'll wait for you to back this up, if you support your claims.

Pick a post, any post and if it doesn't start with one you inevitably get there. Although, anymore, that's about all you have.

4. Earlier in this thread you claimed that creationism was growing, and ignored that atheistic evolution was growing. Just a few days ago, you repeated that on another thread, after being shown the most recent Gallup poll here (which shows the opposite of your claim). Do you care to retract those claims too now, based on the evidence from Gallup, or not?

Creationism saw a slight gain, Theistic Evolution saw a slight decrease. That's what the poll shows.

No mark, evolution denying creationism is either decreasing or holding steady, and atheistic materialism has increased from 9 to 19 points - more than doubling. So do you agree that your own data shows no increase in creationism, with atheistic materialism steadily increasing?

This is the original chart from the OP

Now you introduce the latest poll as if it actually refutes something

Here are the data again:

That's a new chart and I find your debate tactics tedious and disingenuous at best. Shameless would be a more accurate description. It looks like Theistic Evolutionists are becoming atheistic materialists but that's at a glance.

Experts who lie almost constantly.

Sounds like a new claim. Can you show where they have lied almost constantly?

It's nothing new, you've seen it repeatedly. Now if you want the resource information you should ask.

That said, what is the divergence between Chimpanzee and Human genomes as a percentage according to the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome?

That's counting the indels BTW.

Still no support for your claim that the experts lie almost constantly

I'm almost tempted to let you continue because it's going to be so easy to prove. But I won't because you don't know any better. Answer the question.

Have a nice day
Mark

Edited to Add: Here is the latest Gallup Poll:

In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins June 2, 2014

 

[shernren]

So go on, tell me exactly why endogenous retroviruses are extremely rare and dangerous.

(Some things don't change, huh!)

 

[Papias]

For reference:

Claims that Mark has refused to support, which we are waiting for him to support or retract (shortened from same list on Post #134) -


1. Mark claimed ERVs were from a single massive germ line invasion 20 million years ago, then switched to saying it was "the primary" invasion, after the actual case of many infections ranging from 3 to 50 million years ago was shown. Posts #104, 107, others.

mark wrote:

You've been spouting that for so long you have forgotten that I was talking about Chimpanzee ERVs.

• The estimated age ....ranges from 2 to 97 MY.
• ..... about 2 MYA.
• ....25 my
• .....5 MY and 7.8 MY
• .... prior to 6 MYA.

mark, your statement hurts your own argument for two reasons. First, the data you gave has different ERVs coming in at a wide range of times, directly contradicting your "20 million years ago" "massive germline invasion". Second, your "20 million years ago" is long before the human/chimp split, so it doen't matter if which you mean.

Still waiting for mark to either support his "20 million years ago" "massive germline invasion", or admit he's wrong.

2. Mark claimed that "evolutionists" "consider themselves experts because they insult creationists. " in post #106. Still waiting for support for that.
​

Always wondered who you were talking to in circles like that.

Obviously, more of your trash talk is not support. So I guess I'll keep waiting.....

​

3. Sounds like another claim. So you claim I'm using an ad hominem. Please show where I said that your argument was wrong because you personnally are a bad person, or again, retract this claim as well.

​

All you have talked about in this post is me, now you are talking about me in the third person and we are the only two in the discussion. That's either an ad hominem attack, or you need therapy.

How is talking in the third person an attack? We are, after all, on a public forum, on a thread with many other people. If you see that as an attack, maybe it isn't me who needs therapy?

I've asked for examples of me using fallacious logic (Ad Hom) on post after post on this thread, and you never back up your claim. So I'll wait for you to back this up, if you support your claims.

Pick a post, any post and if it doesn't start with one you inevitably get there. Although, anymore, that's about all you have.

OK Mark, how about my most recent post, #134? Where is the ad hom there?

​

4. Earlier in this thread you claimed that creationism was growing, and ignored that atheistic evolution was growing. Just a few days ago, you repeated that on another thread, after being shown the most recent Gallup poll here (which shows the opposite of your claim). Do you care to retract those claims too now, based on the evidence from Gallup, or not?
​

Creationism saw a slight gain, Theistic Evolution saw a slight decrease. That's what the poll shows.

Update - on new thread, (http://www.christianforums.com/t7843390/), on post #3, you admitted that the atheistic numbers are going up, saying:

the non-thesitic numbers have steadily increased.

It's good to see you correct your earlier statements - even if you refuse to do so on this thread. Thank you.

Experts who lie almost constantly.

​

5. Sounds like a new claim. Can you show where they have lied almost constantly?

It's nothing new, you've seen it repeatedly. Now if you want the resource information you should ask.

That said, what is the divergence between Chimpanzee and Human genomes as a percentage according to the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome?

I'm almost tempted to let you continue because it's going to be so easy to prove. But I won't because you don't know any better. Answer the question.

The divergence will range in the 90's depending on how the mismatches are counted. As explained to you many, many times, by many, many experts, the way a match or non-match is counted will of course give a different number.

That's why reasonable people look to the experts - and you and I have agreed that neither of us is an expert.

Here are some of the times when experts have explained this to you. The whole thread is filled with many different experts, including other Christians, generously taking their time to help you understand this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7802261/ which has, in post #3:

Has it been six months already?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7749437/
Ah, this time he went seven before reposting the same thing he's been posting and being corrected on for nearly eight years now.

Another, among others, is here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7728562-4/

Would you like me to copy some of the explainations from those, to help you learn? Or some of the other posts also? Like Post #31 on that last thread?




*********************
Possible new claims:

Originally Posted by Papias

Which sounds like you are still denying that ERVs are from viruses. The evidence is clear that ERVs are from viruses, just as it is clear that impact craters are from impacts. Do you also deny that impact craters are from impacts?

I'm denying that 8% of the human genome is the result of germ line invasions, because it's impossible.

We've seen time and again that the experts are clear that 5-8 % of the human genome is the result of germ line invastions. So

#6. Mark's new claim that it's impossible that 8% of the human genome is the result of germ line invasions.

#7. Also waiting on whether or not you deny that impact craters are from impacts, since you didn't answer that either.

#8. Also waiting to find out you deny that that ERVs are previously viral DNA?.

I'm just pointing out that ERV germ line invasions are extremely rare and dangerous.

Too vague to be meaningful. How rare? 1 in a million years? How "dangerous"? Too dangerous to be passed on? Those would be real claims.

(note that I removed both your denial of using trash talk, as well your additional trash talk that immediately followed the denial, disproving the denail itself.)

Of course it is - and obviously not lethal, or there would be no animals of any kind..

Evolution is not the result of random mutations yet it happens on a vast scale. That means the genomic mechanisms can produce an adaptive trait without random copy errors. You took the Darwinian equivocation of mutations and adaptations hook, line and sinker. If you listen closely, you can hear the Darwinians laughing at you because most of them know it's bunk. I can't believe your that gullible.

It looks like your answer has nothing to do with the preceding statement, and again is just empty trash talk.

News flash, mark - medelian genetics fully supports common descent. It's called the "modern synthesis".

Nonsense, the Modern Synthesis was templated over Mendelian Genetics and the most militant of Darwinians shunned Genetics for decades.

9. Waiting for support for your claim that mendelian genetics doesn't support common descent.

Congratulations! What major?

Thanks My Bachelors will be in Bible and Theology but I'm pretty much a Liberal Arts major.

I hope your studies go well.

Really? Are you psychic? What is it that you think the experts believe that has nothing to do with the actual facts?

I can read what they write, you should try it sometime.

Your response again seems to have little to do with my statement, since reading of course won't tell you what they believe. So

10. Waiting for mark to supply support as to how he knows that what the experts believe has nothing to do with the facts.

​

The GULO Pseudogene (GULOP) confirms the primate tree of life because the mutations therin give the same nested hierarchy shown again and again in other ways. You can continue to deny this evidence if you like.

The GULO is a broken protein coding gene. I know you haven't the slightest interest but a little basic Biology would improve your arguments greatly.

Trash talk instead of answering the question. Do you deny that the GULOP confirms the already established primate family tree?

How is that an insult? I asked what you meant, and then talked about the data. I don't see any way that's an insult.

No one is denying evolution, I just happen to be one of the few Creationists that doesn't take the bait and switch. This has nothing to do with Biology, it's an atheistic social theory known as Darwinism. It's useless as science and as a matter of fact, neo-darwinian social theory is useless as well. They have some convoluted mega-macro theory about how genes control behavior. Genes don't control behavior, they control how cells are built.

An anti- common descent rant instead of an example of me insulting you, which is what I asked for. Again your post seems to have little to do with the text you are "responding" to. So I'll ask again - how was my original statement an insult?
​

In Jesus' name -

Papias
​

 

[mark kennedy]

So go on, tell me exactly why endogenous retroviruses are extremely rare and dangerous.

(Some things don't change, huh!)

When's the last documented case of a germ line invasion? It's rare and in the germ line they would be devastating and I'll tell you what doesn't change, the audacity of Darwinians to try to force their assumptions on others.

Oh and BTW, did you read about the Dmanisi skull?

The braincase of Skull 5 is only about 33.3 cubic inches (546 cubic cm) Dmanisi Human​

Another transitional turns out to be just another ape. Yep, some things never change alright. That was your big transitional but it's a lot easier to get over 700ccs when the skull is crushed.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Still waiting for mark to either support his "20 million years ago" "massive germline invasion", or admit he's wrong.

I was talking about chimpanzee ERVs and showed you extensive details. It's not my fault if you ignored it.

We've seen time and again that the experts are clear that 5-8 % of the human genome is the result of germ line invastions. So

But we are not going to ask the obvious question how these germ line invasions happen without devastating deleterious effects.

#6. Mark's new claim that it's impossible that 8% of the human genome is the result of germ line invasions.

That's an assumption, I don't really have counter-claims for presuppositional biology.

#7. Also waiting on whether or not you deny that impact craters are from impacts, since you didn't answer that either.

Impact craters? Seriously?

#8. Also waiting to find out you deny that that ERVs are previously viral DNA?.

No, ERVs are viruses but they are not the source of 8% of the human genome, it's just an absurd assumption.

Too vague to be meaningful. How rare? 1 in a million years? How "dangerous"? Too dangerous to be passed on? Those would be real claims.

It never happens, that should be giving you a clue. Even with the Phoenix virus they could not avoid frameshifts.

(note that I removed both your denial of using trash talk, as well your additional trash talk that immediately followed the denial, disproving the denail itself.)

Your just plain full of bologna, that's my retort.

9. Waiting for support for your claim that mendelian genetics doesn't support common descent.

Genetics like real world life sciences focus on living systems not dead ancestors.

I hope your studies go well.

Thanks, I'm actually intending to finish up my studies in a Liberal Arts program. I'm thinking about graduate studies and Liberal Arts has so many different subjects to choose from.

Listen Papias, I'm not answering your accusations because their pointless and because I am very busy right now. I don't know about the rest but I always thought you would benefit greatly from taking a good hard look at the life sciences. I'm not trying to be kind and I'm not trying to be condescending, I really think you would get a lot out of it. A Biology teacher on the common forums helped me through it once and you just wouldn't believe how vast this young science of Genetics has gotten.

Take it from a veteran of these debates, what will matter to you is what you can learn about the life sciences. I know for a fact that Mendelian Genetics is far more substantive then Darwinism. A few months back I started a series of articles on how Sociology responded to the Human Genome paper in 2001. The beauty of a science like this is everyone else adjusts to it.

ERVs are a diversion, useful sometimes as markers but basically they are broken protein coding genes. Why don't you try to learn something about how the ones that work, actually function?

No matter what is said, this issue will be settled by the life sciences, Genetics is the prize.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

You keep saying these things that I don't believe you yourself believe, like:

[endogenous retroviruses] in the germ line they would be devastating

What does that phrase mean, mark? What, precisely, is a devastating infection of the germ line with endogenous retroviruses? Surely you must know, as "devastating" is not an adjective to be appended lightly to a fiction of no substance.

Being infected with Ebola virus, for example, is devastating. Your body turns into a walking contagion machine as virus turns your blood to slush.

Being infected with picornavirus in the respiratory tract, on the other hand, is not devastating. Your body turns into a walking contagion machine as virus turns your nose into slush, but it turns out it's easier to live with your nose full of slush than your blood full of slush. That's why a picornavirus respiratory infection is also called the common cold.

So tell me, mark, what happens when a human suffers an endogenous retroviral invasion of the germline? Do they turn green? Sniffle and sweat? Puke blood and spontaneously combust? Develop mystical telekinetic mutant powers? Might they even (God forbid, the horror!) become an evolutionist?

I'm not just being frivolous, mark, because I can see your brain misleading you as the letters "viral" and "invasion" together in the same sentence conjure up some kind of contagious apocalypse, and your bounteous imagination sparking off that phrase is literally the only thing convincing you (and not convincing any of us) that the profusion of ERVs in human and chimp genomes is somehow a problem for evolutionary timelines. Not only that, but it may be a wonderful day for me, for I may be wrong. So go ahead, mark, tell me:

What exactly is an endogenous retroviral invasion of the germline?