Evolution or Creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

What do you call this?

A terribly failed attempt.

 

[AV1611VET]

So nothing then. But seriously if you fancy yourself an expert on the Flud why didn't you ever give an answer for my Goosenecks Challenge? I know, and you know, that you would have failed terribly. But you still should have taken a shot at it.

What do you call this?

A terribly failed attempt.

As you predicted.

But what's with the 'you still should have taken a shot at it' all about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As you predicted.

But what's with the 'you still should have taken a shot at it' all about?

You call that a "shot"? It was nothing.

It did not explain how the structure was formed at all. It was simply using the "God did it" explanation which has been shown to be wrong an amazing number of times, since people still give credence to the possibility.

 

[AV1611VET]

You call that a "shot"? It was nothing.

It did not explain how the structure was formed at all. It was simply using the "God did it" explanation which has been shown to be wrong an amazing number of times, since people still give credence to the possibility.[/QUOTE]
I don't care if I said Humpty Dumpty did it.

I still replied.

And frankly, it sounds to me like you're just trying to save face at my expense.

Which of course, is your prerogative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't care if I said Humpty Dumpty did it.

I still replied.

And frankly, I think you're just trying to save face at my expense.

Which of course, is your prerogative.

That was not a serious attempt to answer the question. Like most of your work here it was pathetic and now worth paying any attention to.

Seriously you should be able to answer such questions if you want to claim you believe the Flood story. Your failure shows that at best it was a morality tale and nothing more.

 

[AV1611VET]

That was not a serious attempt to answer the question. Like most of your work here it was pathetic and now worth paying any attention to.

Seriously you should be able to answer such questions if you want to claim you believe the Flood story. Your failure shows that at best it was a morality tale and nothing more.

Anything else I can help you deny/ridicule?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anything else I can help you deny/ridicule?

AV, I offered to discuss your errant beliefs with you and you responded with nonsense.

Seriously you should not try this with people that you actually meet.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I offered to discuss your errant beliefs with you and you responded with nonsense.

Sorry I insulted your intelligence with a passage of Scripture.

If that bothers you, you're in the wrong place.

Seriously you should not try this with people that you actually meet.

Or what will happen?

Will the Bible, which is:

Hebrews 4:12c ... a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

... cause someone to go ape?

True story:

A well-know evangelist who visited our church has a spinal disease that causes him to "act & talk funny."

He hurt himself badly one day doing some roofing and had to go to the emergency room.

The ER doctor, noticing how he was acting, got the staff psychologist involved, who examined him with such questions as:

1. Do you often think of dying?
2. Do you talk to God and/or the Devil?
3. Do you consider dying a good thing?

Based on his answers, he was committed to the psych ward, and his wife had to get a Christian psychiatrist to override the staff psychiatrist's orders.

He was in the ward about a week.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry I insulted your intelligence with a passage of Scripture.

If that bothers you, you're in the wrong place.

You didn't insult my intelligence, you insulted yours. And then in a petty fit of pique you shut down that discussion.

Or what will happen?

Will the Bible, which is:

Hebrews 4:12c ... a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

... cause someone to go ape?

True story:

A well-know evangelist who visited our church has a spinal disease that causes him to "act & talk funny."

He hurt himself badly one day doing some roofing and had to go to the emergency room.

The ER doctor, noticing how he was acting, got the staff psychologist involved, who examined him with such questions as:

1. Do you often think of dying?
2. Do you talk to God and/or the Devil?
3. Do you consider dying a good thing?

Based on his answers, he was committed to the psych ward, and his wife had to get a Christian psychiatrist to override the staff psychiatrist's orders.

He was in the ward about a week.

Who can blame the doctor? It is hard to tell the difference between a true crazy and a person that believes the Bible literally. This should tell you something.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who can blame the doctor?

The Christian psychiatrist.

It is hard to tell the difference between a true crazy and a person that believes the Bible literally.

Perhaps doctors need more training?

This should tell you something.

Yes.

That doctors may be ill-equipped to handle born-again believers with cerebral palsy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Christian psychiatrist.

Perhaps doctors need more training?

Perhaps.

Yes.

That doctors may be ill-equipped to handle born-again believers with cerebral palsy.

That seems to be a terribly wrong answer. There are harmful psychoses and nonharmful psychoses, the Christian psychiatrist was probably able to see that your evangelist had the latter.

 

[AV1611VET]

That seems to be a terribly wrong answer.

Psychiatrists ill-equipped to know the difference between cerebal palsy and Christian doctrine are okay with you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Psychiatrists ill-equipped to know the difference between cerebal palsy and Christian doctrine are okay with you?

I doubt if the cerebral palsy was the cause of his commitment.

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt if the cerebral palsy was the cause of his commitment.

It wasn't.

Read what I wrote again.

The psychiatrist asked him some questions about dying and talking to God and/or the Devil, and based on his answers, "admitted" (committed) him for testing.

If I went to that ER room, I'd never get out!

 

[bhsmte]

It wasn't.

Read what I wrote again.

The psychiatrist asked him some questions about dying and talking to God and/or the Devil, and based on his answers, "admitted" (committed) him for testing.

If I went to that ER room, I'd never get out!

Better not go to that ER.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It wasn't.

Read what I wrote again.

The psychiatrist asked him some questions about dying and talking to God and/or the Devil, and based on his answers, "admitted" (committed) him for testing.

If I went to that ER room, I'd never get out!

Maybe yes, maybe no. And you are hearing only one side of the story. Since I doubt if your beliefs are harmful to either yourself or to others (at least not physically) I have reason to believe that they would let you go. To commit someone you need to believe that they are more than just crazy. One has to have legitimate concern that the person would harm himself or others.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe yes, maybe no. And you are hearing only one side of the story. Since I doubt if your beliefs are harmful to either yourself or to others (at least not physically) I have reason to believe that they would let you go. To commit someone you need to believe that they are more than just crazy. One has to have legitimate concern that the person would harm himself or others.

You are correct.

It is quite difficult to commit someone in the United States against their own will. The clinician, would have to show with proper diagnostic protocol, they are a danger to themselves, or others.

 

[DogmaHunter]

sfs - I looked up the definition regarding ERVs before typing:

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses.

Retroviruses are any of a group of RNA viruses that insert a DNA copy of their genome into the host cell in order to replicate, e.g., HIV.

An RNA virus is a virus that has RNA as its genetic material. This nucleic acid is usually single-stranded RNA, but may be double-stranded RNA.

I'm always happy to learn anything new and to expand my knowledge if the source is good.

Great. Now that you have the 3 things covered, now you can start thinking about the implications...

So, an ERV is a remnant of a retrovirus infection that got inserted into the host dna.
This thing is thus from then on part of the host's DNA. Depending in which cells this takes place, these ERV's become inheritable by offspring

The exact location of the insertion is pretty random. In primates, it has some 3 billion potential insertion spots, with a few regions being "hot spots" where insertions being somewhat more probable for certain types of retroviruses.

This means that if 2 individuals share an exact ERV, this means that a common ancestor of both individuals was infected and had the virus inserted in its DNA.

Humans and chimps share a LOT of erv's.
Humans and gorilla's share a LOT as well, but less then with chimps.
Humans and oerang oetangs share a LOT as well, but less then with gorilla's and chimps.

Which is EXACTLY what we would expect if we share a common ancestor with chimps, a more distant one with gorilla's and an even more distand one with oerang oetangs...

And this ancestry test works for any 2 random individuals of any 2 random species.

Go ahead....
Find me a cat, dog, bear, whale, lion, gazelle, etc with which we share MORE erv's then with chimps.

Consider yourself challenged.
If you succeed, you will have put evolution theory in a very difficult spot.

My money is on you failing the challenge. Hard. Very hard.

Feel free to give further light on this if you feel you can. One way or another, I don't think ERVs are causing any climbs whatsoever up Darwin' so called Tree of Life.

I've just explained to you how erv's are evidence. And I used the definitions YOU posted to do so.

Any such ideas are purely fanciful theories presented as if they are facts.

No. They are the logical conclusion based on the understanding of what an ERV is.

Consider it to be like an inheritable genetic "scar" of a retro-viral infection.
Your dad gets the infection and passes on the "scar" (=the erv) to you and your sister. You and your sister then pass it on to your own children etc etc.

After many generations, when your dad has thousands of descendents, you'll find the ERV that came into existence in your dad's DNA in the collective DNA of all that off spring. And it could be traced back to your dad. The "common ancestor" who had the initial infection.

Now, take the same logic but instead of 20 generations, count 10s of thousands of generations. The same logic applies: common ancestor gets infection which results in ERV in only his DNA and passes it on to off spring.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Okay.


Okay.


Okay.


Or He created it to be inhabited by humans who wouldn't die.

You know -- before the Fall?


It doesn't surprise me.

On Earth Two (a.k.a., the New Earth), we are going to live forever, despite how the earth is configured.

What you are overlooking, then, is the Fall.

Your worldview is entirely predicated on imagination, so it's easy for you to invent these post-hoc rationalizations.

I'm not 'overlooking' anything. I don't share your adversarial relationship with reality, so I'm not obligated to imagine ways around it along with you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't share your adversarial relationship with reality, so I'm not obligated to imagine ways around it along with you.

Then why should I accept your assessment of the Creator:?

If it was 'created for humans', the being that did it was either stupid, lazy or incompetent.