- Feb 15, 2013
- 8,824
- 6,252
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
If it's a nonsense question why were you able to answer it with such a sensible answer?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If it's a nonsense question why were you able to answer it with such a sensible answer?If the theory of evolution were, tomorrow, proven false it would not imply the existence of a creator.
Because the theory of evolution doesn't reject the existence of a creator, and is completely neutral on the subject. Creator or no creator is a subject completely independent of the theory of evolution.
It's like asking if the oxygen theory of combustion were falsified if it would imply a creator. It is, fundamentally, a nonsense question.
-CryptoLutheran
However, have you ever heard the expression "A gentleman and a scholar"?
Yes, mam.
In fact, I just happened to call our resident tech that very thing a couple of hours ago.
He's pretty quick with solutions around here.
Well, thank you, sfs.(I think that's two glasses clinking in a toast...)
Now you're somebody who can both dish it out and take it. You really tick me off sometimes, but you make me laugh other times.
Why would a young Earth look old?
Why would God create species so that they look like they evolved when God didn't have to create that way?
If we can't trust the Creation to tell us the truth of the past, then why should we trust the Word?
Why would God create Adam and Eve as mature adults? If we physically examined them, would they differ from other humans in the evidence of their growth from fetus to infant to child to adult?
fFOLLOW UP RESEARCH ON ERVs:
This is from an evolution friendly site, for those who think anything from creation sites is defective (though my experience through years of research says just the opposite):
Human endogenous retroviruses: from infectious elements to human genes.
de Parseval N1, Heidmann T.
Author information
Abstract
- 1Unité des Rétrovirus Endogènes et Eléments Rétroïdes des Eukaryotes Supérieurs, UMR 8122 CNRS, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Mammalian genomes contain a heavy load (42% in humans) of retroelements, which are mobile sequences requiring reverse transcription for their replicative transposition. A significant proportion of these elements is of retroviral origin, with thousands of sequences resembling the integrated form of infectious retroviruses, with two LTRs bordering internal regions homologous to the gag, prt, pol, and env genes. These elements, named endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), are most probably the proviral remnants of ancestral germ-line infections by active retroviruses, which have thereafter been transmitted in a Mendelian manner. The complete sequencing of the human genome now allows a comprehensive survey of human ERVs (HERVs), which can be grouped according to sequence homologies into approximately 80 distinct families, each containing a few to several hundred elements. As reviewed here, strong similarities between HERVs and present-day retroviruses can be inferred from phylogenetic analyses on the reverse transcriptase (RT) domain of the pol gene or the transmembrane subunit (TM) of the env gene, which disclose interspersion of both classes of elements and suggest a common history and shared ancestors. Similarities are also observed at the functional levels, since despite the fact that most HERVs have accumulated mutations, deletions, and/or truncations, several elements still possess some of the functions of retroviruses, with evidence for viral-like particle formation, and occurrence of envelope proteins allowing cell-cell fusion and even conferring infectivity to pseudotypes. Along this line, a genomewide screening for human retroviral genes with coding capacity has revealed 16 fully coding envelope genes. These genes are transcribed in several healthy tissues including the placenta, three of them at a very high level. Besides their impact in modeling the genome, HERVs thus appear to contain still active genes, which most probably have been subverted by the host for its benefit and should be considered as bona fide human genes. Some of their characteristic features and possible physiological roles, as well as potential pathological effects inherited from their retroviral ancestors are also reviewed.
----------As can be seen by the words in green, above, the topic of ERVs is highly speculative at this time. Therefore it seems obvious, to me at least, that any "proof" for evolution that they purportedly give is also highly speculative. "Suggest a common ancestor....appear to...most probably....can be inferred....possible...." are nice words for an hypothesis but are not adequate to make a case for actual scientific evidence of anything.
Here is a creationist's perspective on ERVs.:
Here is another thing that seems not to be based on real scientific data...
The evolutionists are saying we are related to chimps because 14 of our 98,000 ERVs are located where theirs are. Aside from the point made in the vid that this is a minuscule percentage, who is saying we came from chimps anyway? Not even the evolutionists say that. Of course they co exist with us! Apparently we are supposed to use our imaginations to draw lines to the invisible dots leading to the invisible, i.e. "missing links" (really, I believe, non existent) ancestors of the chimp. Again, I don't believe that is science at all, just fanciful theories presented as facts.
----------As can be seen by the words in green, above, the topic of ERVs is highly speculative at this time.
Therefore it seems obvious, to me at least, that any "proof" for evolution that they purportedly give is also highly speculative. "Suggest a common ancestor....appear to...most probably....can be inferred....possible...." are nice words for an hypothesis but are not adequate to make a case for actual scientific evidence of anything.
Here is a creationist's perspective on ERVs.:
The evolutionists are saying we are related to chimps because 14 of our 98,000 ERVs are located where theirs are.
Aside from the point made in the vid that this is a minuscule percentage, who is saying we came from chimps anyway? Not even the evolutionists say that. Of course they co exist with us! Apparently we are supposed to use our imaginations to draw lines to the invisible dots leading to the invisible, i.e. "missing" (really, I believe, non existent) ancestors of the chimp. Again, I don't believe that is science at all, just fanciful theories presented as facts.
Would Adam have scars from injuries he never suffered? Would the ground already have fossils in it? Why would a functional creation require Lead in zircons?
This is my last post on this string.
Why does the world look old? It doesn't if you look at all the scientific data not just at one side's presentation of the facts.
Would the ground already have fossils in it? Of course not.
They are the result of, and the overwhelming evidence for, the Great Flood.
Do you see any road kill, any animals in the forest, turning into fossils? Fossilization is a very rare event that requires rapid burial by water with a covering of sediment, you know, sorta like in a...flood. Though such events are very, very rare, we have these vast, worldwide fossil graveyards all over the planet. Some of the evidence shows animals dying right in the process of giving birth or of eating another animal. Sudden destruction, in other words.
Are you just asking rhetorical Qs and looking at one side only, or are you truly, diligently and thoughtfully looking at both sides?
I am not going to respond to the above as I think it would be a waste of time. Let those see who have eyes to see.
Also you talk about "Part of the etiquette of this site" involves using words not vids. People post vids all over this forum and there is no rule against it.
As for etiquette, the forum rules do say not to attack groups of people as when you talk about "creationist lies".
Some have trouble distinquish between apparent age and Omphalos/Last Thursday.
sfs As a matter of fact I had already looked up info on ERVs in the past but searched them out again to be sure I was being factual.
Your "apparent age" claims require God to plant fossils in the ground as part of the creation. That is Omphalos/Last Thursdayism.
ERV's are a retroviruses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
One of those capable of transferring genetic material from separate Kinds into other Kinds.
"In addition, the retroviral proteins themselves have been co-opted to serve novel host functions, particularly in reproduction and development. Recombination between homologous retroviral sequences has also contributed to gene shuffling and the generation of genetic variation."
There are no imagined missing links- this is why each and every one is missing.
No, your age claims require we ignore everything about decomposition and fossilization and pretend soft tissue is hundreds of millions of years old.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?