History of viruses is a proof of creationism

[coffee4u]

The history of viruses is actually a proof of the biblical account taken literally as there has been a gradual development of bad viruses from a situation where there were far less of them. In fact the really deadly viruses have not always been with us but are mutations on earlier less dangerous forms. Measles & Small pox are two of the oldest ones, but flu pandemics have only been recorded since about 1580 and HIV and Sars-cov-2 are both new arrivals from the last 100 years.

It was only after the globally devastating flood that men started eating meat. In the harsh post flood world it may have been the only source of nutrition available at the time. Great hunters like Nimrod are described in Genesis and he may have wiped out a great many species that no longer walk this earth. The narratives of hunters and prey date from this time. From the moment of the flood plagues pass into the biblical story line. Many of these may well have originated from the eating of diseased meat from hunted animals. There are no accounts of plagues before this time with people mainly dying of old age

I agree, I expect worse viruses to come along after this.
The only thing holding back the death rate is modern knowledge and interventions.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree, I expect worse viruses to come along after this.
The only thing holding back the death rate is modern knowledge and interventions.

The history of viruses and humans is pretty constant. New viruses tend to be extremely bad news when they first evolve to infect humans. But that's because the newly-evolved virus is not very well adapted to the new host. The most successful parasite is one that does very little damage to its host. And over time, both humans and viruses become better adapted to each other and the virus become less and less damaging. The real scourges are those viruses that for whatever reason, cannot evolve to be less harmful. Not many of those. Rabies is an example.

Humans carry within themselves, countless reminders of ancient viruses that appeared, infected us, and then died out except for the few that happened to become incorporated in human DNA.

Regulatory evolution of innate immunity through co-option of endogenous retroviruses

1. Edward B. Chuong,
2. Nels C. Elde ,
3. Cédric Feschotte

Science 04 Mar 2016:
Vol. 351, Issue 6277, pp. 1083-1087

 

[mindlight]

The text itself says that the 6 days are not literal ones. Mornings and evenings with no sun to have them clearly shows the "yom" in this case were not periods of time, but categories of creation.

Exodus Sabbath commandment makes it clear that the Sabbath is a literal dayof rest that mirrors pattern of creation. As God rested on the seventh DAY.

Nature is not random. God made it so that it is deterministic at the level humans experience. But even if it was random, that would be no problem for divine providence, which can use contingency or necessity to effect His will.

God does not have to tinker with creation to make it work.

God did not have to tinker with what He originally created but enjoyed his walks in the garden. But now that we and creation are broken, the destructive impact of viruses being a proof of that, miracles are something we hope for.

 

[mindlight]

The history of viruses and humans is pretty constant. New viruses tend to be extremely bad news when they first evolve to infect humans. But that's because the newly-evolved virus is not very well adapted to the new host. The most successful parasite is one that does very little damage to its host. And over time, both humans and viruses become better adapted to each other and the virus become less and less damaging. The real scourges are those viruses that for whatever reason, cannot evolve to be less harmful. Not many of those. Rabies is an example.

Humans carry within themselves, countless reminders of ancient viruses that appeared, infected us, and then died out except for the few that happened to become incorporated in human DNA.

Regulatory evolution of innate immunity through co-option of endogenous retroviruses

1. Edward B. Chuong,
2. Nels C. Elde ,
3. Cédric Feschotte

Science 04 Mar 2016:
Vol. 351, Issue 6277, pp. 1083-1087

Viruses have probably always been plentiful and various. What the fall and flood have done is allow for the possibility that some are very dangerous. Our immunity is broken and we inhabit a shattered eco system. The real evidence of this negative impact is post 2500 BC

 

[The Barbarian]

Viruses have probably always been plentiful and various. What the fall and flood have done is allow for the possibility that some are very dangerous.

Sounds unlikely. But I'd be willing to look at your evidence. What do you have?

Our immunity is broken

In fact, with more international travel, immunity is higher now than it was in a pre-industrial past. Look what happened to people in the Americas when Europeans first came to those continents.

and we inhabit a shattered eco system. The real evidence of this negative impact is post 2500 BC

Show us that. Evidence from ancient remains shows a lot of severe diseases.

 

[mindlight]

Sounds unlikely. But I'd be willing to look at your evidence. What do you have?

I have the same evidence you have. But our trust of dating schemes will vary beyond 3000 years or so.

Science is a rather inadequate tool for autopsies at 4000 plus year distance. But we do have analyses and accounts of plagues , with symptomal references that allow identification of some broad patterns. It appears TB, Small pox, measles, leprosy and polio were major killers in the past and we can find markers of the experience of these disease in DNA. In that sense you see progress as some of these past killers are now curable. But I see an increase in the variety of ways we could die because new diseases like cancers , hiv and covid19 can now kill us also. These are not present in prehistoric corpses. These older diseases could also still kill us without the toolsof modern medicine to defend us

In fact, with more international travel, immunity is higher now than it was in a pre-industrial past. Look what happened to people in the Americas when Europeans first came to those continents.

We carry the scars of previous victories over disease in our DNA. Though if you released small pox from a CDC lab 20-25 % of the worlds population may well still die of it particularlysince the younger generation is no longer vacinated. Moderns die of cancer and heart disease cause they are fat and sedentary and hiv cause they are promiscuous. So the number of potential ways a broken nature can kill us is growing.

Show us that. Evidence from ancient remains shows a lot of severe diseases.

But no hiv, cancer or covid19

 

[The Barbarian]

mindlight said: ↑
Viruses have probably always been plentiful and various. What the fall and flood have done is allow for the possibility that some are very dangerous.

Sounds unlikely. But I'd be willing to look at your evidence. What do you have?

I have the same evidence you have.

So let's see it.

 

[The Barbarian]

But no hiv, cancer or covid19

Well, let's take a look...

Fossil evidence reveals that cancer in humans goes back 1.7 million years
The second fossil find is perhaps the more important. A foot bone from Swartkrans cave provides the earliest evidence for a malignant human cancer, and is dated to roughly 1.7 million years ago.

The earliest hominin cancer. Volume rendered Micro-CT image of the external morphology, showing the extent of expansion of osteosarcoma beyond the surface of the bone. Patrick Randolph-Quinney (University of Central Lancashire/University of the Witwatersrand)

This was seen as a large mass of bone growing on the surface of a fifth metatarsal, which is found in the body of the foot, behind the little toe. The external bone mass might have suggested a benign tumour. But when we looked inside the bone, using advanced Micro-CT imaging, we saw that the medullary cavity – the hollow part of a normal tubular bone – was completely obliterated by new bone growth.


This indicated an aggressive bone-forming condition: a cancer.
Fossil evidence reveals that cancer in humans goes back 1.7 million years

 

[mindlight]

Well, let's take a look...

Fossil evidence reveals that cancer in humans goes back 1.7 million years
The second fossil find is perhaps the more important. A foot bone from Swartkrans cave provides the earliest evidence for a malignant human cancer, and is dated to roughly 1.7 million years ago.

The earliest hominin cancer. Volume rendered Micro-CT image of the external morphology, showing the extent of expansion of osteosarcoma beyond the surface of the bone. Patrick Randolph-Quinney (University of Central Lancashire/University of the Witwatersrand)

This was seen as a large mass of bone growing on the surface of a fifth metatarsal, which is found in the body of the foot, behind the little toe. The external bone mass might have suggested a benign tumour. But when we looked inside the bone, using advanced Micro-CT imaging, we saw that the medullary cavity – the hollow part of a normal tubular bone – was completely obliterated by new bone growth.


This indicated an aggressive bone-forming condition: a cancer.
Fossil evidence reveals that cancer in humans goes back 1.7 million years

1) The dating is guess work
2) The existence of one kind of cancer like the existence of one kind of virus does not imply all the other possible kinds. It is clear that modern man is far more likely to die of cancer than prehistoric man was. And just about the entire scientific community are in agreement on that. What is even clearer is that you examine a range of corpses from people who have died in the last 20 years and they are far more likely to be riddled with cancers than people from 2000 years ago. Anyway how are you going to handle HIV or covid19 which are completely new. Are you going to claim that cause people died of other kinds of STD or respiratory disease they are nothing new!!!

 

[The Barbarian]

1) The dating is guess work

Nope. It was worked out by physicists long before this was discovered. Rutherford showed how radioactive decay can give the age of rocks. And we know it works, because it precisely dated the volcanic flow that buried Pompeii, for which we know the date.

2) The existence of one kind of cancer like the existence of one kind of virus does not imply all the other possible kinds.

So your argument is that only the kind of cancer we can learn about through human remains existed back then? Show me your evidence for that.

It is clear that modern man is far more likely to die of cancer than prehistoric man was.

Cancer is most common in older people. Since people are much more likely to live to an old age now, that makes sense. In very early man, there were lot of other things likely to kill you earlier than cancer.

And just about the entire scientific community are in agreement on that.

Show us that. Checkable source.

What is even clearer is that you examine a range of corpses from people who have died in the last 20 years and they are far more likely to be riddled with cancers than people from 2000 years ago.

Given that soft tissues of people who lived 2000 years ago, are pretty hard to find, it's not hard to imagine that.

Anyway how are you going to handle HIV or covid19 which are completely new.

Neither are completely new. Both viruses mutated from existing viruses in other species. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Are you going to claim that cause people died of other kinds of STD or respiratory disease they are nothing new!!!

They are merely mutated forms of previously existing viruses.

 

[mindlight]

Well, let's take a look...

Fossil evidence reveals that cancer in humans goes back 1.7 million years
The second fossil find is perhaps the more important. A foot bone from Swartkrans cave provides the earliest evidence for a malignant human cancer, and is dated to roughly 1.7 million years ago.

The earliest hominin cancer. Volume rendered Micro-CT image of the external morphology, showing the extent of expansion of osteosarcoma beyond the surface of the bone. Patrick Randolph-Quinney (University of Central Lancashire/University of the Witwatersrand)

This was seen as a large mass of bone growing on the surface of a fifth metatarsal, which is found in the body of the foot, behind the little toe. The external bone mass might have suggested a benign tumour. But when we looked inside the bone, using advanced Micro-CT imaging, we saw that the medullary cavity – the hollow part of a normal tubular bone – was completely obliterated by new bone growth.


This indicated an aggressive bone-forming condition: a cancer.
Fossil evidence reveals that cancer in humans goes back 1.7 million years

The article does not say how it dated the dry bone fossil.

However the article does seem to support the central idea of the thread that cancers and viruses are getting worse:

In the human world, it is true that rates of tumours and cancers are accelerating because environmental toxins and other tumour forming factors in the modern (particularly Western) lifestyle. But such diseases were present in the past, even without the influence of modern lifestyles.

However, by any modern standard these primary bone tumours are very rare. Finding them in two of our fossil ancestors is highly unusual. The next step is to ask what mechanisms may be behind the presence of tumours and cancers deep in prehistory and how that may have an impact on the evolution of cancer in the modern world.

 

[mindlight]

Nope. It was worked out by physicists long before this was discovered. Rutherford showed how radioactive decay can give the age of rocks. And we know it works, because it precisely dated the volcanic flow that buried Pompeii, for which we know the date.

There are positive examples like Pompey that you can quote. Where the igneous rock froze quickly avoiding issues with seepage in and out and the initial sample distribution of parent and daughter elements fitted the method. There are also negative examples where the dating method has proven wildly inaccurate such as the dating of the Mount St Helens lava flows and Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows.

At a distance of thousands of years without any eyewitnesses and alternate date confirmation methods the apparent age of an eruption is impossible to confirm

1) Noone knows how much parent and daughter element was present in the original sample
2) Noone can verify that seepage in or out did not occur
3) Noone can be absolutely clear that alternate factors have not massively accelerated rates of decay. In the case of Christian claims about supernatural accelerators like the flood or fall this is especially problematic and makes most of the science irrelevant.

People come back with isochronic agreement between different minerals rates of decay in the same test zone. But mainly these were all mixed up with the original sample so their apparent ages will concur. If the rocks had an old apparent age when they were liquified then that age will be frozen in the igneous rock

So your argument is that only the kind of cancer we can learn about through human remains existed back then? Show me your evidence for that.

There is no tissue left and most cancers are of tissue, so yes we do not have much evidence. The bone example you give looks like cancerous growth but even that is not 100% conclusive. It is a best guess. I do not dispute that cancers like viruses existed in ancient times anyway. It is the prevalence of these viruses and cancers I am more interested in and which was the point of the thread.

Cancer is most common in older people. Since people are much more likely to live to an old age now, that makes sense. In very early man, there were lot of other things likely to kill you earlier than cancer.

Show us that. Checkable source.

Given that soft tissues of people who lived 2000 years ago, are pretty hard to find, it's not hard to imagine that.

As you say there is precious little evidence to work with. But to debunk what you said:

1) It is is myth to suggest that prehistoric people lived short brutish lives

" It was found that once infant mortality rates were removed, life span was calculated to between 70 and 80 years, the same rate as that found in contemporary industrialised societies. The difference is that, in the latter, most individuals survive childhood"

The life expectancy myth, and why many ancient humans lived long healthy lives

2) Most scientists agree that there is a rarity of examples of malignancy in ancient societies

"A striking rarity of malignancies in ancient physical remains might indicate that cancer was rare in antiquity, and so poses questions about the role of carcinogenic environmental factors in modern societies. Although the rarity of cancer in antiquity remains undisputed,"

Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between? | Nature Reviews Cancer

Neither are completely new. Both viruses mutated from existing viruses in other species. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

They are merely mutated forms of previously existing viruses.

Again you are obfusticating!!

These cross species jumps of viruses are part of the evidence of an ecosystem that is breaking down. HIV and SARs-COV-2 made this jump from one species to another. So Humans were not dying of the resulting diseases until recently.

There is a growing list of examples of such jumps that vindicate the OLd Testament food laws relating to eating wild animals. There was a ceremonial need here in defining a Hebrew people set a part but so also the prohibitions made radical sense in a world where diseases could be communicated between species by the eating of diseased meat.

The argument from my side it not that these diseases did not exist in the ancient world but rather that despite all our medical advances the number and prevalence of these diseases has grown and in part because of our careless eating of diseased animals and carcinogenic lifestyles. This is a proof of creationism because we describe a broken world and humanity in the fall and flood and have a explanation for why this brokenness will ultimately require divine intervention to resolve.

The experience of Covid-19 should be instructive as this is a case where medical science is pretty much useless right now in actually curing people. Rather we go back to the principles of isolation and cleanliness established in Leviticus and Deuteronomy 3400 years ago as a way of dealing with the crisis. Eventually there may be a vaccine but for now the veil is stripped away and we see the brokenness of our world up front and personal. Medical science for all its advances is in a race with the growing levels of brokenness in our world and bodies. It has been winning this race for 70 years with massive reductions in infant mortality, the use of antibiotics to treat bacterial infections and global vaccination programmes. But it is not an inevitable conclusion that these victories will continue forever without some new way of thinking and a completely different kind of breakthrough. Surgery, antibiotics and drugs have already reached that frontier of usefulness in many peoples view and there may only be marginal advances yet to be had.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are positive examples like Pompey that you can quote. Where the igneous rock froze quickly avoiding issues with seepage in and out and the initial sample distribution of parent and daughter elements fitted the method. There are also negative examples where the dating method has proven wildly inaccurate such as the dating of the Mount St Helens lava flows and Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows.

Yes, because the people doing the sampling ignored proper methods. In the case of Mt. St. Helens, the creationist doing the collection included unmelted material in sample, even though he was warned about it. These ancient bits of rock in the sample gave a misleading age.
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

It's a common ploy among creationists. Geologists are well aware of these potential problems, and spend a lot of time assuring that such contamination is not present. In many cases, rock is unsuitable for dating because of the difficulty in separating old rock from new rock. Bottom line is that careful sampling gives accurate results.

At a distance of thousands of years without any eyewitnesses and alternate date confirmation methods the apparent age of an eruption is impossible to confirm

Fortunately, there are other means of determining age,such as overlaying strata, and erosion data.

1) Noone knows how much parent and daughter element was present in the original sample

Isochrons invalidate that argument
Isochron dating - Wikipedia

2) Noone can verify that seepage in or out did not occur

"Seepage" can be tested for different rocks. It's not hard to do.

3) Noone can be absolutely clear that alternate factors have not massively accelerated rates of decay. In the case of Christian claims about supernatural accelerators like the flood or fall this is especially problematic and makes most of the science irrelevant.

That fails, too. If radioactive decay were to have somehow been accelerated sufficiently to pack billions of years into thousands of years, the resulting burst of ionizing radiation would have fried all living things, and left traces of such overwhelming radiation in the rocks themselves.

1) It is is myth to suggest that prehistoric people lived short brutish lives

But it's not a myth to note that people tended to die earlier, of causes other than those common in old people. And in the past, violence was a much greater cause of death in adults. Even a hundred years ago homicide rates were higher than they are now.

Most scientists agree that there is a rarity of examples of malignancy in ancient societies

But as you see, it did happen. And of course, if a child died of leukemia in ancient times, who would record it as cancer?

Barbarian observes that HIV and COVID-19 are merely mutated forms of existing viruses:
Neither are completely new. Both viruses mutated from existing viruses in other species. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

They are merely mutated forms of previously existing viruses.

Again you are obfusticating!!

Just pointing out the fact. If truth is "obfuscation" to you, perhaps that's an important clue.

These cross species jumps of viruses are part of the evidence of an ecosystem that is breaking down.

Don't see how. It clearly was useful for the virus to adapt to humans. And while it is true that large populations do mean we see more of this, I don't see how that's a breakdown in ecosystems.

HIV and SARs-COV-2 made this jump from one species to another. So Humans were not dying of the resulting diseases until recently.

Happens a lot. Our genomes contain evidence of many, many formerly pathogentic viruses that no longer exist, except as inactivated fragment of non-coding sequences in our DNA.

The argument from my side it not that these diseases did not exist in the ancient world

And many others did, that no longer exist. And some existing today are known to have existed then.

but rather that despite all our medical advances the number and prevalence of these diseases has grown and in part because of our careless eating of diseased animals and carcinogenic lifestyles.

In fact, many many infectious diseases are much less prevalent now than they were even a few hundred years ago. Plague, for example, will never again take out a third of European people, partially because of medical care and the availability of a reasonably good vaccine, but also because natural selection preserved the genes of those more resistant to the pathogen.

This is a proof of creationism because we describe a broken world and humanity in the fall and flood and have a explanation for why this brokenness will ultimately require divine intervention to resolve.

If you were right, it would be a disproof of creationism. But your idea is wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

But it is not an inevitable conclusion that these victories will continue forever without some new way of thinking and a completely different kind of breakthrough. Surgery, antibiotics and drugs have already reached that frontier of usefulness in many peoples view and there may only be marginal advances yet to be had.

Pretty much the story of humans. We are nothing if not resourceful.

 

[The Barbarian]

However the article does seem to support the central idea of the thread that cancers and viruses are getting worse:

It doesn't say anything about viruses getting worse.

 

[The Barbarian]

The text itself says that the 6 days are not literal ones. Mornings and evenings with no sun to have them clearly shows the "yom" in this case were not periods of time, but categories of creation.

Exodus Sabbath commandment makes it clear that the Sabbath is a literal dayof rest that mirrors pattern of creation. As God rested on the seventh DAY.

I'd be willing to hear your argument that a figurative passage in Genesis is automatically made literal history, if it is referenced elsewhere in the Bible. What do you have?

God did not have to tinker with what He originally created but enjoyed his walks in the garden. But now that we and creation are broken, the destructive impact of viruses being a proof of that, miracles are something we hope for.

That's not scriptural. It's just someone's addition to Genesis to make it more acceptable to humans.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, because the people doing the sampling ignored proper methods. In the case of Mt. St. Helens, the creationist doing the collection included unmelted material in sample, even though he was warned about it. These ancient bits of rock in the sample gave a misleading age.
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

A claim blindly accepted by so many but actually not what happened. They were aware of the ancient bits of rock and catered for that. The main aim was to expose just how useless the Potassium- Argon dating method was in assessing rock ages as even new rocks can appear ancient with that method.

It's a common ploy among creationists. Geologists are well aware of these potential problems, and spend a lot of time assuring that such contamination is not present. In many cases, rock is unsuitable for dating because of the difficulty in separating old rock from new rock. Bottom line is that careful sampling gives accurate results.

Methinks you and many others do not like the result and the rationalisation works from that point backwards.

Fortunately, there are other means of determining age,such as overlaying strata, and erosion data.

Both of which are interpreted radically differently by those who believe a global Flood was responsible for these patterns and that Mt St Helens is a proof of rapid rock layer formation as a burst lake created sedimentary rock layers in a matter of hours.

Isochrons invalidate that argument
Isochron dating - Wikipedia

They do no such thing. If the apparent age of different rock types was the same going into the melt event then they could well appear the same age coming out also. But we have no way of knowing what the mix of parent and daughter elements was in any of the original rocks. We also cannot know about the arrival of contaminating elements in the melt or after it

"Seepage" can be tested for different rocks. It's not hard to do.

In the unanalogous case of the flood I doubt it. In the case of the fluid dynamic situation of a moving lava flow I would wonder how you would do that and how you would retrieve evidence from the pre lava state that had simply been burnt away

That fails, too. If radioactive decay were to have somehow been accelerated sufficiently to pack billions of years into thousands of years, the resulting burst of ionizing radiation would have fried all living things, and left traces of such overwhelming radiation in the rocks themselves.

Not in supernatural conditions and nor can we be certain that combinations of natural variables would not also allow for this.

But it's not a myth to note that people tended to die earlier, of causes other than those common in old people. And in the past, violence was a much greater cause of death in adults. Even a hundred years ago homicide rates were higher than they are now.

There are now more things that we can die of which is the main point. HIV and the incidence levels of cancer and now covid-19 are proofs of that. We still die from wild beasts and accidents like many ancients and could well die if we caught small pox even though that has been eliminated.

But as you see, it did happen. And of course, if a child died of leukemia in ancient times, who would record it as cancer?

Barbarian observes that HIV and COVID-19 are merely mutated forms of existing viruses:
Neither are completely new. Both viruses mutated from existing viruses in other species. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

They are merely mutated forms of previously existing viruses.

As stated I believe viruses existed in the original creation and have mutated to become more dangerous to humans over time. The proof here is that noone died of HIV before the last 50 years, noone died of COVID-19 until late last year.

Just pointing out the fact. If truth is "obfuscation" to you, perhaps that's an important clue.

Don't see how. It clearly was useful for the virus to adapt to humans. And while it is true that large populations do mean we see more of this, I don't see how that's a breakdown in ecosystems.

Happens a lot. Our genomes contain evidence of many, many formerly pathogentic viruses that no longer exist, except as inactivated fragment of non-coding sequences in our DNA.

And many others did, that no longer exist. And some existing today are known to have existed then.

In fact, many many infectious diseases are much less prevalent now than they were even a few hundred years ago. Plague, for example, will never again take out a third of European people, partially because of medical care and the availability of a reasonably good vaccine, but also because natural selection preserved the genes of those more resistant to the pathogen.

If you were right, it would be a disproof of creationism. But your idea is wrong.

The evolutionary theory requires that things move from simple and similar to various and complex. Using the idea of a tree with trunk, branches , twigs is commonly used. So it not a problem for an evolutionist to admit that the number of viruses is increasing and indeed they would expect that to be the case. With mutations, different kinds of flu and disease are more likely than less. From a creationist point of view the genome of a virus is too simple to qualify as a type of creature , it is simply a feature of creation. Clearly it is a feature that has gone badly wrong since the original creation as people now die in more and more different kinds of ways , even allowing for our apparent mastery of small pox, (which has its markers in our DNA) but which if released from the CDC could still kill us. In a war situation and especially one involving bio weopans or nukes death statistics from viruses could well be much higher as a % of the surviving population than 33%. That we cannot imagine a world in which our health service is overstretched and cannot handle the throughputs or has no answers or cures for what afflicts its patients is a rather strange assumption given human history thoroughly disproves it.

 

[mindlight]

It doesn't say anything about viruses getting worse.

"In the human world, it is true that rates of tumours and cancers are accelerating because environmental toxins and other tumour forming factors in the modern (particularly Western) lifestyle."

 

[mindlight]

The text itself says that the 6 days are not literal ones. Mornings and evenings with no sun to have them clearly shows the "yom" in this case were not periods of time, but categories of creation.



I'd be willing to hear your argument that a figurative passage in Genesis is automatically made literal history, if it is referenced elsewhere in the Bible. What do you have?



That's not scriptural. It's just someone's addition to Genesis to make it more acceptable to humans.

Literary framework theory while common in many Western theological circles is not mainstream in the church as a whole and is not the way that those closest to the original languages interpret that passage.

 

[Brightmoon]

A claim blindly accepted by so many but actually not what happened. They were aware of the ancient bits of rock and catered for that. The main aim was to expose just how useless the Potassium- Argon dating method was in assessing rock ages as even new rocks can appear ancient with that method.



Methinks you and many others do not like the result and the rationalisation works from that point backwards.



Both of which are interpreted radically differently by those who believe a global Flood was responsible for these patterns and that Mt St Helens is a proof of rapid rock layer formation as a burst lake created sedimentary rock layers in a matter of hours.



They do no such thing. If the apparent age of different rock types was the same going into the melt event then they could well appear the same age coming out also. But we have no way of knowing what the mix of parent and daughter elements was in any of the original rocks. We also cannot know about the arrival of contaminating elements in the melt or after it



In the unanalogous case of the flood I doubt it. In the case of the fluid dynamic situation of a moving lava flow I would wonder how you would do that and how you would retrieve evidence from the pre lava state that had simply been burnt away



Not in supernatural conditions and nor can we be certain that combinations of natural variables would not also allow for this.



There are now more things that we can die of which is the main point. HIV and the incidence levels of cancer and now covid-19 are proofs of that. We still die from wild beasts and accidents like many ancients and could well die if we caught small pox even though that has been eliminated.



As stated I believe viruses existed in the original creation and have mutated to become more dangerous to humans over time. The proof here is that noone died of HIV before the last 50 years, noone died of COVID-19 until late last year.



The evolutionary theory requires that things move from simple and similar to various and complex. Using the idea of a tree with trunk, branches , twigs is commonly used. So it not a problem for an evolutionist to admit that the number of viruses is increasing and indeed they would expect that to be the case. With mutations, different kinds of flu and disease are more likely than less. From a creationist point of view the genome of a virus is too simple to qualify as a type of creature , it is simply a feature of creation. Clearly it is a feature that has gone badly wrong since the original creation as people now die in more and more different kinds of ways , even allowing for our apparent mastery of small pox, (which has its markers in our DNA) but which if released from the CDC could still kill us. In a war situation and especially one involving bio weopans or nukes death statistics from viruses could well be much higher as a % of the surviving population than 33%. That we cannot imagine a world in which our health service is overstretched and cannot handle the throughputs or has no answers or cures for what afflicts its patients is a rather strange assumption given human history thoroughly disproves it.

mindlight , uh , no.