How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. My ancestry is pure human back to the creation.

Repeating an error does not make it so. Biologists can show you that you shared a common ancestor with apes. There was no "creation" as you know it. That was realized long ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

?

2/3 of dinosaur species are accurately portrayed as being separate species, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is a Cadillac mostly similar to a Lincoln? Form/function.
2-3. Because.

Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are assuming evolution before the fact.

No, we aren't. We have evidence of common ancestry.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

We aren't assuming that ERV's are found at the same position in the human and chimp genome. We actually looked and mapped their location. Out of the 200,000 ERV's found in the human genome, more than 99.9% were found at the identical location in the chimp genome. Again, none of this is assumed. These are all direct observations.

 

[pat34lee]

You evaded questions 2-3.
Are you unable to explain the questions asked? If you can't, just say so.

I'll say rather, that I refuse to spend more time on someone
who doesn't want answers, just something to fight against.

 

[pat34lee]

No, we aren't. We have evidence of common ancestry.

No, you have interpretations of evidence that make you see common ancestry.

If you see something as simple as a nail or arrowhead, you know it had a creator.

Yet evolutionists refuse to acknoledge the Creator who made DNA and
living cells more complex than anything man can make.

 

[pat34lee]

2/3 of dinosaur species are accurately portrayed as being separate species, correct?

Point? How many need to be real?

 

[pat34lee]

We aren't assuming that ERV's are found at the same position in the human and chimp genome. We actually looked and mapped their location. Out of the 200,000 ERV's found in the human genome, more than 99.9% were found at the identical location in the chimp genome. Again, none of this is assumed. These are all direct observations.

Who observed the ERV's being put in the genome?

Fact: there is a burned out candle on a table.
You can make guesses as to the story surrounding
the candle, but no way to prove any are true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you have interpretations of evidence that make you see common ancestry.

If you see something as simple as a nail or arrowhead, you know it had a creator.

Yet evolutionists refuse to acknoledge the Creator who made DNA and
living cells more complex than anything man can make.

The reason that we interpret nails and arrowheads as being created is because we can observe man making them. There is no evidence for creationism. And there is no evidence that your God made DNA or cells either. You would do yourself a huge favor if you learned what scientific evidence is. In fact I will all creationists learned it. They would quickly see how creationist scientists let them down.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I'll say rather, that I refuse to spend more time on someone
who doesn't want answers, just something to fight against.

I asked for answers and you didn't give any. You dodged them. I'm not looking for a fight, I just want you to explain what you think the observations that I stated mean.

No, you have interpretations of evidence that make you see common ancestry.

No. We follow the evidence to it's logical conclusion. If we put you and your closest family member's DNA profiles side by side, you'd accept the evidence that it shows your relation to one another but when you're shown your genome is 96% similar to a chimpanzee, suddenly DNA evidence isn't valid?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you have interpretations of evidence that make you see common ancestry.

Since you aren't able to refute those interpretations, they stand.

If you see something as simple as a nail or arrowhead, you know it had a creator.

Yet evolutionists refuse to acknoledge the Creator who made DNA and
living cells more complex than anything man can make.

I guess you have never heard of biological reproduction? Have your parents taught you about the "birds and the bees"? We already know where babies come from, and it isn't from a deity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who observed the ERV's being put in the genome?

We observe that retroviruses insert randomly into the host genome.

ERV's are no different than finding a fingerprint at a crime scene.

Fact: there is a burned out candle on a table.
You can make guesses as to the story surrounding
the candle, but no way to prove any are true.

We can observe retroviruses inserting into genomes right now. We can observe retroviruses producing ERV's. We can observe that they insert randomly. We can observe that ERV's are passed down vertically from ancestor to descendant. All of these mechanisms are observed.

In fact, we can reconstruct human ERV's, and they produce a viable retrovirus.

"Here, we derived in silico the sequence of the putative ancestral “progenitor” element of one of the most recently amplified family—the HERV-K family—and constructed it. This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/

So why wouldn't we conclude that ERV's are the product of retroviral infections?

 

[pat34lee]

The reason that we interpret nails and arrowheads as being created is because we can observe man making them. There is no evidence for creationism. And there is no evidence that your God made DNA or cells either. You would do yourself a huge favor if you learned what scientific evidence is. In fact I will all creationists learned it. They would quickly see how creationist scientists let them down.

Most creationists know, which is why I don't let evolution be called
science without correction. It is a philosophy, unproveable and unfalsifiable.

Did you ever watch the video on the origin of the theory of evolution?

 

[pat34lee]

So why wouldn't we conclude that ERV's are the product of retroviral infections?

1. They were random mutations.
2. They were just as you say, and the similarity to those in
ape DNA has more to do with their genetic similarity than
any imagined ancestral relationship.
3. They were always part of the genes. not a mistake at all.

A real biologist could probably list several reasons more
likely than these. All that is needed is to really take off the
evolution blinders and ask how else it could happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most creationists know, which is why I don't let evolution be called
science without correction. It is a philosophy, unproveable and unfalsifiable.

Did you ever watch the video on the origin of the theory of evolution?

But you are wrong. It only seems unfalsifiable because it is very very very probably (science does not deal in absolutes) correct. Creationists complain all of the time about this, even though there are real examples of what would show the theory to be wrong.

Also technically no theory is "provable". When you make a complaint like that you only show that you have no understanding of the scientific method at all. So please don't claim it is not science until you learn what the scientific method is yourself.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you need to remember, Pat 34 Lee, that all solid silence is deeply rooted in philosophy. Modern science evolved out of the Judaeo-Christian tradition because the latter taught that God is an orderly God and therefore creation is in order and therefore can be studied scientifically. On the other hand, may reject evolution, not really on the basis of science, but on the basis of their adherence to the classical Christian model of God whereby it is assumed God does not change and therefore neither does the universe and therefore neither do we and so there is no evolution.
As far as evolution per se goes, it is probably one of the best supported of all scientific doctrines. there is no doubt about it, none whatsoever, that the universe and earth are billions of years old, that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones, etc. Of course, all science contains an element of speculation and here the speculative element has to do with whether the evolutionary process amply addresses questions of meaning, value, significance. However, these are questions best addressed in the courts of philosophy and theology, to start with.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you need to remember, Pat 34 Lee, that all solid silence is deeply rooted in philosophy.

I think true science lies in the ability to identify and manipulate God's creation in ways that are beneficial to mankind.

In a nutshell, science is all the collective information contained in the physical universe.

To that end, God gives the gift of knowledge* to men & women, which gives them a deeper insight into the universe than anyone else can go.

That's why people on here, just like Einstein, can talk over our heads, and no matter how we try, we can't fully grasp what they're saying.

Jesus said ...

John 10:10b I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

That's what scientists do.

They make our lives more abundant through the study and manipulation of God's creation.

* 1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
1 Corinthians 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

 

[Hoghead1]

I agree with most of what you said, AV1611. However, I do not agree that they talk so far over our heads that we can't understand them. Speak for yourself. If you want to take the time to study and learn, then, yes, you can understand what they are saying

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree with most of what you said, AV1611. However, I do not agree that they talk so far over our heads that we can't understand them. Speak for yourself. If you want to take the time to study and learn, then, yes, you can understand what they are saying

Nope.

I'm going to respectfully disagree here.

I think a Holy Spirit driven man can go deeper into science than a man driven by his own spirit.

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem you have here is that you have no way of judging how much someone is truly moved by the Spirit.