[_ Old Earth _] Evidence for Early Civilization vs. the Bible

[samuel]

But exactly this black and white attitude is quite a threat to many Christians. I've seen many being convinced by the evidence against a literal Genesis and for evolution which then lost their faith completely as they were indoctrinated that a literal Genesis is a requirement for being a Christian.

I can see that most people don't like to see either black, or white but prefer the gray areas. Which only says I don't have to believe in anything, except that which suits me.

As far as science is concerned they rejected Darwins theory for a long time, until someone realized Ah-Oh now we have to admit God does exist. Since they couldn't do that! they have now created a theory Darwin would not have probably even accepted. Like the big BANG!, there remains only one problem with that. They just couldn't seem to figure out where that came from. So they said that it all started with a singularity, a point of light. But again the problem just wouldn't go away, because now they can't figure a way to explain where that light came from.

 

[Barbarian]

I can see that most people don't like to see either black, or white but prefer the gray areas.

The most extreme position on almost any issue is almost certainly dead wrong.

Which only says I don't have to believe in anything, except that which suits me.

Or rather admits that God and His creation are more than a mere fairy tale. Orthodox Christianity differs from YE creationism by accepting this fact.

As far as science is concerned they rejected Darwins theory for a long time,

His theory had become dominant in his lifetime. He was honored and regarded as one of the great scientists of his time.

until someone realized Ah-Oh now we have to admit God does exist.

Actually, the final set of evidence that made Darwinism universally accepted in science was Mendel's discovery of genes. That explained most of the problems Darwin could not explain. Amazing that atheists would chose the theories constructed by two Christians to further their aims, isn't it?

(stuff about the big bang)

Sorry, that's not part of evolutionary theory. All the other theories of cosmology are consistent with evolution, too.

 

[Guest]

Then how come most Christians worldwide are theistic evolutionists?

Because we're all brainwashed, starting at a very young age, with the absense of competing theories. The Theory of Evolution is nothing but philiosophy, with no basis in fact. When people start thinking for themselves, versus accepting what's crammed down their throats during their "education", they come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible.

 

[jwu]

The Theory of Evolution is nothing but philiosophy, with no basis in fact.

Then what is your explanation for ERVs and cytochrome C?

 

[Guest]

Then what is your explanation for ERVs and cytochrome C?

ERV's are just a part of the original genetic package, that evolutionists have interpreted to be remnants of old virus infections. These virus infections, as the story goes, were incorporated into the genome as useful, funtioning components...ha!!

Completely laughable.

What's your story on cytochrome C...I'm ready to hear what rhetoric you've gleened from pro-evolutionary websites. :

 

[jwu]

Except that these contain sequences that are characteristic for viruses. In one case the virus was even resurrected, demonstrating conclusively that this is viral DNA.

http://halogen.note.amherst.edu/~astude ... ws/07.html

A common designer argument fails utterly there.

What's your story on cytochrome C...I'm ready to hear what rhetoric you've gleened from pro-evolutionary websites.

It's a genetic defect which is shared by humans and other apes. There is no reason why a designer should implement such a defect, and no reason why the same defect should occur independently in various species. Common descent however explains this nicely.

 

[Guest]

Except that these contain sequences that are characteristic for viruses. In one case the virus was even resurrected, demonstrating conclusively that this is viral DNA.

http://halogen.note.amherst.edu/~astude ... ews/07.htm

This virus, which the scientists aptly named Phoenix, was recreated from genetic elements found in humans...

oops...sounds like intelligence was involved...throw that one out.

Right on the money for ID though...repeatability..."recreated".

It's a genetic defect which is shared by humans and other apes. There is no reason why a designer should implement such a defect, and no reason why the same defect should occur independently in various species. Common descent however explains this nicely.

Why should the creator implement any defect?

Defects are shared amoung many organisms: AIDS; Rabies, Hematemesis; blindness; Bronchitis; Cancer...

Common descent doesn't explain anything here...common cause, yes.

Watch your correlations...the can be highly misleading... :

 

[jwu]

oops...sounds like intelligence was involved...throw that one out.

Right on the money for ID though...repeatability..."recreated".

Do you have any idea what was going on there? They took DNA from an ERV, inserted it into a viral hull and demonstrated that this results in a functional virus, thus giving evidence beyond reasonable doubt that this sequence was of viral origin.

Intelligence is involved in pretty much any scientific experiment...

You are blinded by wishful thinking.

Why should the creator implement any defect?

Exactly my point - how about an answer to that?

Defects are shared amoung many organisms: AIDS; Rabies, Hematemesis; blindness; Bronchitis; Cancer...

These are not implemented defects of a common designer though.

Common descent doesn't explain anything here...common cause, yes.

These examples have nothing to do with common descent. What is the cause that is supposed shared cytochrome C defects? Be specific.

 

[Jon-Marc]

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:22. God laughs at the foolishness of man trying to explain Him away and to explain the beginning of everything.

 

[Guest]

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:22. God laughs at the foolishness of man trying to explain Him away and to explain the beginning of everything.

A big, fat Amen to that. 8-)

God's Wrath Against Mankind

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened

Romans 1:18-21

 

[jwu]

Big deal. All they did was take a strand of code and inject it into a viral hull...and said they recreated a virus...LMAO!! Unbelievable that this stuff gets printed.

You won't get a vrus if you just take any strand of DNA. Viral genomes actually are highly compressed and sophisticated, with multiple reading frames and so on....but hold on:

After scientists recreated the Phoenix virus, they studied its life cycle and mode of infection.

Ooops...they apparently got a functional virus

The Fall. Of course, I'm sure you discount the doctrine of The Fall, also...but your still Christian, right?

And how is this supposed to affect DNA? And why does it do so in a pattern which recapitulates the phylogenic tree?

Nope. Them there's what folks call mutations. Garbling of the original code.

Exactly. And there is no reason whatsoever why humans and other apes should have been subject to the precise same mutations which knocked off cytochrome C.

Ha!! Nice try. You want me to prove your case for you. I'm busy. Do it yourself. Hint...it doesn't exist. Common descent is science fiction. It cracks me up to the max: I can't believe people buy into this bologna. Reminds me of the research that was published in major journals a few years back, claiming a particular dinosaur species had 100% turkey DNA. I was ROTLMAO. The "research" actually got peer reviewed and published. Common decent is not grounded in observation, repeatability, or anything else to do with science. It's just a fairy tale.

Nice try of a cop out once your red herring was busted. You don't have to make my point for me (actually right now you are doing that quite nicely, demonstrating the bankruptcy of your position with empty rhetorical ploys), but you have to make a proper argument on your own. Just throwing some nonsense at me, hoping that those who share your views don't read it carefully enough to see the actual lack of content and then trying to divert away once you get asked to make a coherent argument.

Wake up Hilter Youth..it's not too late!! you can still use your own brains. But you have to choose to do so.

Charlie, Charlie...i didn't expect you to sink that far.

But while we're at it:

Reminds me of the research that was published in major journals a few years back, claiming a particular dinosaur species had 100% turkey DNA. I was ROTLMAO. The "research" actually got peer reviewed and published

Do you have a reference for that?

 

[Barbarian]

Reminds me of the research that was published in major journals a few years back, claiming a particular dinosaur species had 100% turkey DNA. I was ROTLMAO. The "research" actually got peer reviewed and published

Do you have a reference for that?

Charlie got it garbled, as usual. Scientists found a small amount of heme (a subunit of hemoglobin) in a T-rex bone. They injected it into a lab animal, which produced antibodies against the heme.

The antibodies so produced reacted more strongly to the heme of a turkey than it did to the hemes of reptiles.

Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. The "100% turkey DNA" was most likely Charlies imagination.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/12/6291