Inconsistency of literalists vs science

So sin is responsible for humans and apes sharing random the same random bits of viral DNA?

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showAbstract&doi=10.1034/j.1399-0039.1999.530605.x&area=production&prevSearch=%2Ballfield%3ADonner

Sin is responsible for all primates sharing the EXACT same mutation? But no other kinds share it?

I just don't get it. That kind of logic can wish away anything and explains nothing. With that logic we can suppose that God really made the earth last week but he gave us false memories and all for a purpose all His own ut we just cannot tell the difference. (Yes it is absurd and I know why. Using the absurd to demonstrate absurd as Rush occasionally does.)

 

You keep saying that it is the exact MUTATION. Why would you consider it a mutation if it never was to begin with... Consider this we look like primates. We act like primates. Since GOD obviously is dealing with man, why would GOD not give man a taste of his own medicine---give us something to watch. The very best way to do this is to make them as close to us as possible without actually becoming us. You want to make them apart of us. This isn't what GOD intended but you want to believe man developed and wasn't created. It doesn't matter what you think you believe. The fact is you believe we developed and were not created.

 

Because the same four genes appear pretty much universally for making the same four enzymes for making vitamin C. The premise is that somewhere along the way the common ancestor of the primates had this very specif mutation that interfered with the production of vitamin C. Since the diet supplied plenty of vitamin C, the mutation was effectively neutral, as most are in a quirk of the way the genetic code works, and primates kept evolving. By itself it is just a lone peice of data. But when combined with other pseudogenes and genetic data and with the fossil record, a pretty clear picture of our emergence from the primates becomes clear.

The problem with you assertion is that it is completely arbitrary. If you were designing a creature that you did not want to make vitamin C, is it not sloppy to put all the machinery in there to make it but to then bend one of the spokes in one of the gears so that the whole system grinds to a halt. If you want to make humans and the other primates not make vitamin C (even for the manipulative reason you give) then just leave the whole thing out.

Sometimes I think you have a completely different idea of God. You seem to have no problem with a God who would " give man a taste of his own medicine" and create features in ways which make them seem like something they are not. You seem to have no problem with God as a trickster and One who manipulates cruelly for His own pleasure. I find that unusual.

 

Ute;
To a certain point I will agree with you.
God is NOT a trickster.
That being said, I will however submit that you are jumping to a conclusion and failing to see other POSSIBLE AND PROBABLE explanations for the mutation.
You simply dismiss my point that the FALL of man affected everything with narry a word except to say it is 'wishful thinking'.
Now would care to intelligently adress it?
By saying "with that kind of logic" you discount the fact that my point is BASED on what we know to be true. That is; Scripture.
You also jump to the unwarranted and absurd to discount the factual. This is at the very best, evasive. Please do not do this. I don't believe I am being evasive to you. I have already said what my position is.
Simply that I know God to be true.
You have time and again refuted this with, 'evolution is true therefore God's own WORDS cannot be'. (paraphrase is mine in order to clarify the point I think you are trying to make)
Now, Ute, you seem to be a smart fellow. Will you address the fall and its affects on your evidence?
Can you SHOW how the Fall had NO effect on your 'evidence'?
I can SHOW how it did. I already have.
Your turn.
In His service;
Jim

 

A most valid point indeed. Plus the Bible says that ALL of creation was affected------not just man. If that is the case, I see no "LOGICAL" reason why GOD wouldn't cause the problems of humans (who are of a similar design to apes) to become a factor in the primate health concerns.

 

BUt you throw out a hypothesis without any reason behind it nor any explanation of why these things would happen. Because of sin you expect there to be shared pseudogenes between the humans and the other apes? Because of sin you expect both humans and apes to share specific retroviral LTR insertions? Because of sin you expect that the rocks should be sorted according to their ratios of radioactive isotopes? Because of sin you expect the we should find a series of intermediate fossils from the modern horse going back to a common ancestor that it had with the ancestor of the rhino AND that genetic testing should confirm the link? Because of sin light raced billions of light years in only a few thousand years? Because of sin, the fossils are sorted into very narrow slices that only make it look like certain creature were alive in specific windows and are only found with specific other fossils?

No, I do not follow your logic.

 

Edit: Duplicate.

 

Ute;
This is NOT nor was it INTENDED to be a hypothesis. As I see it, a 'hypothesis' is just a guess, a supposition, a theory.
You have, once again, conveniently ignored the pertinent points of my posts.
You "glom" onto one word and try to make it seem or sound ridiculous. This is, at best, as I said in the above post, evasive.
The point IS and has ALWAYS been this.
In simple english for those who may have missed it;
The EVIDENCE you cite is tainted by the CORRUPTION OF SIN.
Yes, sin caused it all.
Sin caused the fall. Note; that was a FALL as in "down", not a CLIMB as in "up".
Because of this FALL the whole world was corrupted.
God DESTROYED the world with a FLOOD. There was about, ABOUT 2000, years of mankinds comings and goings during that 2000 years. Since we know they lived a very long time back then, just WHAT do you think was accomplished by them? If bestiality can and does happen today, then I submit that it happened then. This would EXPLAIN all your "similarities" and "mutations" in the gene pool. And it is much more PLAUSIBLE than your common ancestor mantra. Given what has been revealed to us in Scripture. My appeal is to what the Bible plainly says.
For example, if we "post-cross" peoples have advanced so much in "Knowledge" in just the past few hundreds of years with men who lived a few decades, then just WHAT do you suppose went on during 2000 years of men living for centuries?
You see? God SAID the WHOLE EARTH was corrupt and evil before Him.
Gen 6:12...
"All flesh had CORRUPTED his way upon the EARTH".
If the Bible says ALL it means ALL.
I submit once again. Sin is the cause.
I also submit that;
genetic testing is not now nor ever has been 100% accurate. You know this. 99% may be enough to convict or exonerate a criminal in a court of law but this is not the courtroom of the world. This is God's Book we are talking about.
Either God is RIGHT or God is not.
By the tenor of your posts, I can see that you are NOT willing to lay the claim of falsehood at the feet of God.
Therefore, I submit that your INTERPRETATION of the so-called evidence is flawed.
Yes, Ute, SIN IS the primary cause for ALL the conflict in this area of origins.
God declares HE is the Creator, that HE spoke the world, universe, plants, animals, etc into existence. Then HE took dirt and made man.
(Side note; since we are made of DIRT and in a bag of skin, then...WE ARE DIRTBAGS!
)
Anyway, as I see it. The issue is NOT what does the "scientific" evidence tell us? The issue IS what does GOD SAY?
God said sin corrupted the whole earth.
What do YOU say?
In His service;
Jim

 

I love you man. Right on! Preach it!
Thank you Jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And who SAYS the light of far away stars RACED billions of years in a short time?
I submit that when God created everything in the order He SAID; that the light from those stars was here the instant He spoke, "Let there be light" And it was SO!
I submit that your interpretation is again in error.
I submit that the "fossil" record was laid down in a period of a few months while the flood was upon the earth. I SAW what Mount St. Helens did in a single day. This was MINOR to what the Flood did over many months. How can you be so (whatever?)
Why are specific animals grouped together?
Perhaps for the SAME reason they are today?
"Birds of a feather flock together."
You say in effect that, the fossil record could ONLY mean...
I say unto you, your interpretation is in error, according to the very WORDS of God.
I have ALREADY shown how the "radio-active" isotopes could be affected by sunspots. But nevermind that. Ute, your issue is with GOD'S WORDS.
In His service;
Jim

 

With GOD NOTHING is impossible. Did Adam have a NAVEL? Adam was created a healthy 30 year old man. Adam was not born; therefore, he had no navel.... This is limited human reasoning! God created Adam as the prototype of the human race; therefore, Adam and Eve may both have been created with navels. I never saw them.

Creation was likely accomplished apart from how we want to think, imagine or figure out. The Flood compounds the problem by mixing it all together, shifting it all around and flipping it on its head. On top of everything we now have to add approximately 5, 6 or 7 thousand years of environmental changes and seismic activity that I believe were not a part of pre-Flood earth. </font>[/QUOTE]Very good point.

Ute; have you watched your clothes washing machine lately?
Do you suppose that a world-wide flood could mix things up a bit more than that?
God said the waters COVERED the mountains by 15 cubits of water.
The common understanding of a cubit is about 18 inches, therefore 15 cubits = ABOUT 22 feet. Give or take. That much water is sure to change things.
But I belabour the point.
And I didn't even touch the environmental changes of the last 4000 years.
You decide brother.
In His service;
Jim

 

Jim and A_Christian,

No one would argue that those things are IMPOSSIBLE. God COULD have easily created the whole universe in 6 days with age built in. But why would He do that?

My problem with these ideas is they are still rooted in the desire to find SOME WAY to see the earth look young scientifically. It's still pushing the square peg in the round hole!

 

Well Charles,
I wasn't going down that road.
But since you mentioned it.
Could you tell me why God would NOT do it just that way.
I am not saying He built the world with age built in per se.
However, would it not be implied when He said that there were trees with FRUIT on them, rather than just trees.
Would it not be implied when He said certains trees had fruit which had their seed in them?
Would it not be implied that age was built in if the fowls of the air were already flying in vrs 20?
The herb yeilding seed?

When God SAID "Let there be light" are you suggesting that it THEN took billions of years to get here?
Puzzling indeed.
In His service;
Jim

 

Exactly. You make wild conjectures but without any sort of evidence to back it. The evidence does not support your position. If you wish to take your literal interpretation as the final word then do so. But it is the insistance that the evidence actually shows a young earth that is the problem.

You have asserted much, but shown little. If you want to stop at the literal reading then do so. If you think the evidence is for a young earth, then present some.

You say all the fossils were layed down in a short period. But look at the details. THey do not support you. When looking at individual fossils, it is very possible to tell the enviroment that preserved the organism. Some were buried in floods. Some sank to the bootom of still lakes or oceans. Some were covered in ash. Some covered in dust. Many were scavenged after death (hard to do in a flood!). But very few are actually found in a set of circumstances that fit your hypothesis.

Sure God could have made the light in transit. But that also means that all the history recorded in that light NEVER HAPPENED! This is where I refuse to view God as the trickster. I don't think he made supernovas and gamma ray bursts and colliding galaxies and all these things we can see the history of as a flase history that never actually happened. I refuse to believe that the sky is some sort of supernatural movie that never actually happened.

If you wish to say that my interpretations are in error, then it is up to you to show both where the interpretations are specifically wrong AND to give a new interpretation that BETTER fits the data. YOu have made a few assertions and conjectures but have not actually shown anything yet. Give me data. Give me references.

 

"Could you tell me why God would NOT do it just that way."

IMHO, it does not seem to be in God's character to deliberately sow such confusion. I do not think He would create life with such traits that it appears to share common ancestry if it really did not. I do not think there would be fossils showing the evolution of life if it really did not happen. I do not think there would be sedimentary rock with fossils of animals that never lived. I do not think the stars would record a history that never happened.

I agree that if the earth really were young, there would need to be a certain maturity to support life. But I do not think that would extend to include a false appearance of age. I just cannot buy that. It is not the God I know.

 

Charles:
God said he created the world in six days. He did it because it pleased him to do so. The Bible says in Revelation 4:11  Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
This answers your question of why he would do it that way.

 

Frank;
AMEN!
In His service;
jim

 

UTE;
You have consistently accused me of "conjecture" "hypothesis" "assertion" etc... and THEN accuse me of NO EVIDENCE to back it up.
I have CONSISTENTLY given you evidence, which you CONVENIENTLY have dismissed with unlearned questions designed to fog my evidence.
I give you Scripture and you say "Why would God...?"
I am replying with;
"Who hath know the mind of Christ...?"
I referred you once to Job 38-41. You did not even address it.
I've referred you to numerous Scriptural "evidences" and you DISMISS them as if you are some super intellectual who cannot be bothered by something as simple as God REVEALING Himself and His wonders to puny little men.
You CONTINUALLY ask "Why ...blah blah blah."
I've given you why and what.
Because this does not satisfy you is why you dismiss them? I think this is the case.
I will give you one more chance to SEE, in writing, WHY. Then, as I have repeatedly TOLD you, the rest is between you and God.
If you want to believe GOD was deceiving us then you can RE-INTERPRET what He has plainly SAID 'til your heart's content.
1 Cor. 3:18-20
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."
"And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."
Now, Ute, as I see it; your problem is simple.
You do not believe what God says. Not WHAT He says, nor WHY He says it, nor HOW He says it.
You can no more PROVE that Paul raised anyone from the dead, scientifically, than you can prove Jesus walked on water, SCIENTIFICALLY.
You either believe God, or you don't.
Do not reply with "WHY...". Ok?
Job asked WHY and all He got was "WHERE WERE YOU..."
I say the same to you.
In His service;
Jim
I am done. "After the first and second admonition reject...".
I have gone WAY past this rule.