Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

WinAce, I think it would be preferable if you refrained from such ad hominem attacks in future. If Jester is as stupid and ignorant as you make out then he will soon show it in his own words, attempting to implant this impression on us before he has a chance to make his own name on this board makes you look cheap.Yes, I know his opening salvo was pretty rude about you, but responding in kind is only lowering yourself.

I'm getting heartily sick of creationist lumping atheism and evolution in the same bucket. Evolution is not incompatible with either theism in general or Christianity in particular.Having said that, the first part of the response is meaningful. If there is a god then he should be verifiable by reference to his effects on the real world. Otherwise he's meaningless. I'm also amazed at the number of Creationist who hold this kind of opinion. The flood didn't happen. There is exactly zero evidence for it, and let me tell you, something like that would leave evidence. Jericho didn't have walls at the time they were supposedly destroyed in the bible. The story of the Israelites being slaves in egypt doesn't tally with the records from Egypt. There is no record of the sun standing still for a day found outside of the bible.Sure, you may say none of these are 'proof' that's why proof is a not awfully useful term, but you cannot argue that this is not evidence against biblical accuracy.[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 09-16-2003]

In other words you base your criteria for proof on an emotional reaction to arguments made by a few other people.Why not try to agree a consistent standard instead ?And can you back up your claim that "your" side is doing better at being right ? With real evidence ?

jester461. What is wrong with asking you to hold to a common standard when you reject evolution & accept a creator?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

The evidence I speak of as proof in the Biblical format, is that over the years science has stated certain placesand events and people in the bible did not and could not have existed. And over the years historical hard evidence has come into light that provens several point that were painted as "proof of biblical fairy tales" are now historical facts.
King Hezekiah's Tunnel Inscription is a recent example of this, the city of Jericho, the old city not the new one is another, the Ubar project results of the silk trade, the recents finds at Gigal, all prove the "geographical" accuracy of the Bible, when "modern science " dismissed it's claims on these subjects as fables and proof of it lying. These are just a few of the numerous claims that science has said the bible lies about and has later been proven the bible was right. When I speak of proof in the bible, I speak of the statistical track record of a "theory". Both in my eyes are "theories", both with circumstantial " unsustainable evidence" promoted by its followers, and this is what the zealots on both sides of the arguement mostly adhere to. For every claim there is a counter claim on both sides, and they are fun and enlightingen on both sides to discuss and debate, however for one side to claim " undeniable proof" is absurd to say the lest.
I personnally have lived on most all the continents of this world, have lived under goverments ruled by religions, I have been on dinosaur digs in the Badlands of our country, been on archeological digs in Israel, at Jericho.I have see the paintings in France and been to the pyramids in Egypt. I have lived in Iceland and seen first hand our worlds formation there, and been to Peru at archeological sites there. Because of the influences of my famous uncle I needed to see where the answers are and have moved my family all over this world travel since I left college twenty years ago to find answers, and have come to a conclusion, we all have it wrong. None of it fits the "supposed evidence" each side claims it has, but for accuracy so far, by track record alone, the Bibilical references have never been "proven" wrong yet, and the "evolutionary theories" are constantly in a state of flux and disproof, a reent example of this is now, the great proof of adapation, the speckeled moth" has now disappeared from the upkept websites,because of the latest proof on evidence tampering by the scientist involved. Statisically I have to count the bible as a better chance of being accurate at this stage, its basic math. And again this is not "proof" this is a belief based on statistical data. Neither side has "proof", if they did this discussion would not take place.

I am not quite sure what your question is actually asking, but maybe I can answer it by saying this, I do not claim to have proof of God, I claim to have belief in God because of a statistical relationship. See my above post to help clairify. I just hold a serious objection to people claiming proof on either side of their theories, it demeans those of us that are actually still searching for the real truths, especially those of us that are out here actually looking and not sitting at a desk job relying on others research. I haven't found the proof either way yet, I still research both sides, but statistically one side is not doing that well.
And that is my common standard, the level of proof has to been the same acrossed the board, I hate Creationist, who refuse to read the evolutionary theories and consider the possible ties between the two theories and I hate the evolutionist who call all creationist "ignorant hillbillies" and other insults because they don't have the answers either. "Proof" is "proof", if you have to change the "levels" of proof, then what you have is conjecture and circumstantial evidence and not"proof", and this is for both sides.
I am however convinced, after over 24 years of traveling this planet, living in the different culuture, spending time with the evolutionist in the Dakotas and on the digs in Israel and seeing what I have, I am truely convince we all are oing to be extremely suprised at what the real "proof" will show us when we find it".[This message has been edited by jester461, 09-16-2003]

What proof would that be? I'll assume you're refering to the fact that the famous photos were staged. And? While it is unfortunate that most textbooks don't caption the photos as such, it has no baring on their validity, or the validity of the associated research. The photos are simply showing the constrast in visibility of the two moth types, a demonstration to the reader if you will. The moths do perch on tree-trunks, the white moths are more visible on trunks where the lichen has been killed, the black moths are more visible on trunks with lichen. The actual research involved capturing and counting the moths and measuring the relative frequencies of the two types. Whether the photos were staged or not can have no effect on these measurements. They still show what they have always shown.I would also point out that most textbook photos are staged. They're staged so that they come out clearer and can demonstrate the point more accurately.

So basically your claim of doing statistically better has no basis in statistics.What you have is a set of unsubstantiated claims that "modern science" denied things mentioned in the Bible which have since been "proven". That is not a "statistical track record" - that is anecdote. Moreover you have not shown any basis for comparison which would be needed to show that "your side" was doing better.Instead of bragging about your famous relatives and your experiences it would be better to provide solid support for your assertions.Indeed you are quite wrong about the peppered moth. It is not disappearing - if anything it is more prominent than ever - because of the distortions and misrepresentations of the opponents of evolution. The simple fact is that the scientists were and are right.The Bible on the other hand is coming under severe fire from archaeologists as has been discussed here on other threads.Oh and basic math - REAL mathematics - is that personal opinions and anecdotes are not statistical evidence. Calling them mathematics - as you do - is absurd. Ask your uncle.

HI, I think that you really need ot get the latest research on these, you are about 25 years out of date.Tel es Sultan (Jericho) was uninhabited when the Bible says Joshua 'destroyed' it.I am afraid you will not find a single modern day archaeologist to agree with you on the military conquest of Canaan as described in the Bible. The truth is, the modern day archaeologists are simply not looking for that type of evidence anymore, it is universally accepted that there was no military conquest of Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze/early Iron transition, the Bible's account is pure fantasy.Archaeologists are no longer even contemplating a biblical Exodus group either, or an enslavement of the Hebrews, or a desert wandering, and it is even highly unlikely that there was ever a united monarchy. These events are regarded nowadays as folk lore, the bible has lost its status as a reliable historical source because of the huge amounts of negative evidence.All the old 'archaeologists', Albright, Glueck, and even to an extent Dever (who changes his opinions virtually on a daily basis), have been totally discredited. Granted, it did look like the archaeological data supported the Bible way back inthe 20's and 30's when Albright was at the peak of his career, but the vastly improved methodologies and technologies have reduced Albright's conquest 'model' to a myth.So if you think that you can use archaeology to prove the Bible then you really need to go back to school and study the up to date information.Best Wishes.Brian.

I can't tell who this comment is directed toward. I think almost every evolutionist here who has addressed the issue has told you, in one way or another, that in science theories are supported by evidence, not proven. It's fine to say "proof" as a sort of shorthand when you only mean "supported by evidence", and evolutionists use this terminology all the time. But I don't think anyone here has ever said or even implied that there was "undeniable proof" of evolution using "proof" in the strict mathematical sense (ie, proven correct by construction for all time), because science is not in the business of proving anything.Theories are supported by evidence, and when sufficiently supported to convince a preponderance of scientists they become accepted. Theories, including evolution, are never proven. We all understand this here. So the next time someone says they have "proof" of evolution, they probably mean evidence. At least I hope they do. And if they don't then you're justified in jumping all over them. But no one here is claiming "undeniable proof" of evolution in this sense right now, so you can relax and discuss the evidence.--Percy

jester461, Statistical relationship of what?There isn't a single external source that corroborates the supernatural claims of the bible.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Finally, a light in the dark,Percipient, you voice a side of the arguement I wanted to hear, unfortuinately the messages above you , are the issue I am speaking of, message twenty two leaves out the recent evidence of evidence tampering that was reported on MSNBC, that went way beyond gluing insects to trees and justifies "tampering with evidence" as an acceptable pratice, as long as the results fit his theories.
Message 23 states.."That is not a "statistical track record" - that is anecdote. Moreover you have not shown any basis for comparison which would be needed to show that "your side" was doing better." which is what I am talking about also, a mathamatically ratio is not a statistic, when is shows a relationship in "creationism and the Bible, it is only "anecdotal"..... but when a retro virus shows a mathamatical relationship, this is "evidence". Most evolutionsist use this same tactic, they will not accept a standard, the level of proof is greatly reduced when it promotes their opinion.And then he tries to puncuate his point by adding insults at the end.
The numbers of times being right as compared the number of times being wrong is a ratio and a statisic, he just uses another word to dismiss it because he doesn't like want it presentsMessage twenty four, flat out denies evidence that I personally was present at, Jericho was not uninhabited, the modern city of Jericho is nowhere near the ancient city of Jericho, and it was definately inhabited when it was destroyed, we uncovered urns with petrified food stuffs and evidences of battle when I was there. "Brians" mention of "25 years" shows he searched just for web sites as this is a common number on the web sites, but these sites fail to mention the recent excavations,( under 25 years ago) that I had the priviledge to volunteer to be on when, And his research stops there.
He fails to mention that the research I speak of is so recent that it made CNN and MSNBC within the past two weeks, and he won't mention it or acknowledge it becasue it weakens his case.He then states..."Archaeologists are no longer even contemplating a biblical Exodus group either, or an enslavement of the Hebrews, or a desert wandering, and it is even highly unlikely that there was ever a united monarchy.".....totally disregarding the recent evidence supplied to the International Court in the Hague, by the Egyptian government, as the basis for a lawsuit. They, the Egyptians, presented documented copied of scrolls, with detailed accounts of the gold and properities the Jews took when they left Egypt. The basis of the lawsuit is they are demanding this gold and properties back. The exodus of the Jews has some documentation, or it would not have made it up to the International Court, as the are laws of evidence and procedure to follow to get there, I presented this to Winace, but his dismissal was " Anyone could file a lawsuit", showing a complete lack of understanding on how the International Court works and accepts cases, but it was put on disregard as it doesnt fit his theory , the same as Brian, here. This story was also carried on CNN.
Your voice,Percipitent, is a reassuring voice to hear, but I am afraid the three post before yours is the predominant voice, and its the reason both our sides,(yes my side does this also),will never find the truth, or if they acciedently do they will deny it.

I've not seen MSNBC. I assume it's an US TV channel?The only report I've heard of refers to the photos being staged. Do you have other? You'll notice I prefixed my reply with What proof would that be? I'll assume you're refering to the fact that the famous photos were staged, if you have other proof, present it.Staging photographs to demonstrate the difference in visibility of the two moth types on trees with/without Lichen is not "tampering with evidence" anymore than DaVinci's painting of the last supper is. The evidence lies in the statistics collected on relative frequencies of the moth populations. Do you have evidence that these have been tampered with?

Interesting that jester ignored both my post 11 and 15 and then accuses evolutionary biolgists of not providing evidence.....I guess ignoring provided evidence and criticism is one way of claiming you are not wrong.Come on jester...make your beliefs scientific and address the easy four part test of whether or not your "beliefs" are scientific or not in message 15. If you can, you will be the first creationist ever to do so...in case you are reluctant to scroll back1. propose a testable hypothesis of creationism
2. show that it is falsifiable
3. provide evidence to support your hypothesis
4. explain how it better explains natural and laboratory observations than competeing hypotheses or theories.If you cannot do this simple task then you are not talking about science.

Statistical relationship of what?There isn't a single external source that corroborates the supernatural claims of the bible.MarkI disagree, there are externals sources that corroborate them , just nothing that proves them, the same as your side. How ever, and I want to keep this short, the statistically relationships have to do with several relationships and probalities. Now before all of the insults fly about God not being probably, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about things like the probability of a twelve level symbiotic relationship forming, the track record of "proven " errors, the probabilties of mathamatical ratios developing in patterned forms in a chaos environment. Deviations in the formulas play factors in thisas well as aberrations. There are also mathamatical formulas in Evolutionary Psychology, and animal attraction that intrigue me, mathamatical realationships in music , sound and human pyschology, the "supposed" magic ratio-the math ratio that supposedly shows up in everything from the universe, down to quatum level(although I am still researching this one).
Thing like this help form my opinions of the way I "believe", emphesis on "believe".