For Creationists: What about DNA evidence?

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

This is really a topic for another thread, but I just couldn't let this pass without comment.

The bible doesn't teach that the earth is flat - au contraire, the oldest book in the bible, the book of Job, describes an earth that is a sphere:

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]
A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.

(From www,christiananswers.net)

Although not fitting in ths thread (we might make a new one for it and give a link here?)

This answer is not convincing. Actually i think that your site (the one you refer to) is rather liberal at interpreting things.

A Sphere is a 3 dimensional object. A circle is 2 dimensional. And of course the bible could have said sphere (the term was known) but it doesnt.
If you look at classical flat earth ideas of the past what will you see ? a circular earth.
Lets look at Isaiah, Chapter 40 (King James Bible) - ChristianAnswers® WebBible™ again (you mentioned that). Take one verse later.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

This is a description of a cone like object or a hemisphere. The limit of the curtain is the end of the world, just as with a tent.

I have not found any 3D description of any planetary object in the bible so far.

 

[Autodidact]

I think, Kathryn, that the Biblical view of the earth was flat, whether a circle or a square, otherwise the devil could not have taken Jesus to a high mountain and showed Him all of it. Here is a good summary, compiled by a non flat-earther.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think, Kathryn, that the Biblical view of the earth was flat, whether a circle or a square, otherwise the devil could not have taken Jesus to a high mountain and showed Him all of it. Here is a good summary, compiled by a non flat-earther.

That's why Martin Luther made the following drawing based upon a plain text reading of the Bible:

 

[Autodidact]

No image. Did it look anything like this?

 

[Fortunato]

So - how can one even claim "There is life after death," or "God made the universe?" Such statements are neither true by definition or true by empirical confirmation!

Well, newsflash - scientific laws are not verifiable either.

Hi Kathryn, I'm not sure if I understand you correctly or not. Lumping "unverifiable" scientific laws together with untestable ideas seems like an attack on the credibility of the scientific method. There is a big difference between untestable ideas and testable ones. Statements such as, "There is life after death," or "God made the universe?", cannot be empirically confirmed because there is no possible way to test them using naturalistic methods. That means these statements are relegated into the category of "untestable, unprovable ideas". I agree that since scientific understanding is based on observing nature, and we could observe something tomorrow different from what we've observed in the past, scientific laws cannot claim to be proven. But it is unfair to imply that because they are not absolutely proven they are somehow less important or relevant to us as knowledge.

But we've measured light over and over so many times that SURELY we know at what speed it travels!!! No - what we know is that so far, every time we've measured it, we've come up with this figure. That does not prove that it has never traveled faster or slower, or always will remain at this speed. What it DOES prove is that it USUALLY travels at a particular speed.

To say that light USUALLY travels at a particular speed is to imply that you've measured it at different speeds. I mean, if I were to say that I usually go to the gym on Thursdays would you infer there were other days that I also went there? I think your last sentence would be more accurate if it were rephrased: What it DOES prove is that [every time it's been measured in a vacuum] it ALWAYS travels at a particular speed.

Miracles can only be dismissed if scientific law allows no exceptions.

Miracles are a suspension of the laws of nature. Who says these laws are immutable? Even modern physics concedes that beyond the natural world the laws of nature do not apply. But even within nature, God cannot be restricted.

I would say that a miracle can be dismissed if it can be explained by natural phenomenon. Are scientific laws immutable? Our scientific understanding of the natural world is certainly mutable and changes as we discover new things. But it does appear that we live in a world where experiments and the laws of nature are repeatable and unchanging. In this sense, these laws are immutable. If the laws of nature were constantly changing, then it's doubtful we would exist or be able to make any sense of the world. As to the question "What lies beyond this world", that is pure conjecture and falls withing that category of "untestable, unprovable ideas".

By the way, I've seen several debates which D'Souza participated in and was impressed at how good of a speaker he was.

 

[Autodidact]

What I would say, Kathryn, is that while scientific knowledge cannot ever be 100% or 100% proven, it can approach such a degree of certainty that for all practical purposes of how we actually use the word, we can consider it as proven.

We say, for example, that we "know" the earth is round. Actually it's a theory, a theory supported by the evidence, capable of generating correct predictions, so we say we know that. You don't know, with 100% certainty, that the floor will be there when you step out of bed, or even that I am a person and not a computer-bot, but you feel certain enough about both to say that you know them, in the normal sense of the word.

So in that sense, science is capable of giving us knowledge, and we are justified in saying that we know empirical things.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No image. Did it look anything like this?

That's an incorrect visualization of the creation as described in Genesis 1.

 

[Autodidact]

That's an incorrect visualization of the creation as described in Genesis 1.

Yes, we now know that it's incorrect, but it approximates what Jews and Christians thought Genesis was describing until science learned otherwise.

 

[Jose Fly]

What, you guys can't see the image in #163? It shows up on my monitor, and I posted it via the URL from my photo album here at RF.

 

[themadhair]

What, you guys can't see the image in #163? It shows up on my monitor, and I posted it via the URL from my photo album here at RF.

It doesn't show. Post ling plox.

 

[Kathryn]

I think, Kathryn, that the Biblical view of the earth was flat, whether a circle or a square, otherwise the devil could not have taken Jesus to a high mountain and showed Him all of it. Here is a good summary, compiled by a non flat-earther.

I do not know of any Christians who believe that Satan literally showed Jesus the entire earth from the mountain top - that would be impossible whether the earth was flat or not. Anyone 2000 years ago or 2 minutes ago would know that.

 

[Jose Fly]

It doesn't show. Post ling plox.

How 'bout now?

 

[themadhair]

How 'bout now?

Still nothing.

 

[themadhair]

that would be impossible whether the earth was flat or not. Anyone 2000 years ago or 2 minutes ago would know that.

Actually, if the earth was flat then why would it be impossible? And if the author believed the earth was flat why would you doubt the author's belief that such a thing was possible?

 

[Kathryn]

Job is the oldest book of the bible. Job 26:7 states that:

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

The oldest book of the bible describes an earth that is suspended in space.

The Hebrew word "chuwg" is used three times in the Old Testament. It is an interesting word that is roughly translated "circle," and the three verses that use this word are beautiful and moving:

"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:" Proverbs 8:27

"It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." --Isaiah 40:22

"Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven." Job 22:14

Let's keep in mind that the bible is not a book of science and was never meant to be. The bible, like other sacred writings, is meant to convey spiritual teachings and truths. There are very few Christians who believe that every word of the bible is to be taken literally. Obviously the books of the bible encompass many literary styles - but not one of them claims to be a science textbook.

I like the above verses though because of their implications - orbits, space, the roundness of the earth, etc. They define the earth as circular - and this definition does not limit the circle to a flat circle. The passage from Job doesn't imply a big, flat plain hanging in space either.

Back to the story of Satan and Jesus standing on the mountain top and looking at "the whole earth." Here are the actual passages:

Matthew 1: 8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Luke 4: 5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

There are many Christian viewpoints of these passages. Some people, of course, always insist that everything in the bible is literal. I believe that is a ridiculous point of view. I think it's just common sense, reading these passages (I encourage you to read them in their entirity) that the language of these accounts is obviously allegorical, spiritual, and full of symbolism.

These are spiritual beings and a spiritual experience. Remember, the writer is writing about an event between two beings with supernatural powers. Neither being, Christ nor Satan, would be bound by human limitations.

The mentioned kingdoms could even be allegorical to worldwide power. Many Christians over the centuries have interpreted these passages to mean that rather than to be a literal story.

These passages describe supernatural and spiritual events. Personally, I think that's obvious.

 

[themadhair]

Interpretational revisionism never ceases to amaze me. You know its coming so you really shouldn’t be surprised, but when it does you still end u being surprised.

The bible was written in a time where the writers lacked the information we have today. This is reflected in their writings. Personally, I think this is obvious. But apparently not to some people.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, we now know that it's incorrect, but it approximates what Jews and Christians thought Genesis was describing until science learned otherwise.

That's not what I said. Science has nothing to do with it. It's an incorrect visualization of creation as described by Genesis 1.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I do not know of any Christians who believe that Satan literally showed Jesus the entire earth from the mountain top - that would be impossible whether the earth was flat or not. Anyone 2000 years ago or 2 minutes ago would know that.

Some people have a problem with the supernatural. That one supernautral being could show another supernatural being all the kingdoms of earth from one vantage point just trips their circuits. There is also a lot of speculation about what that passage and it's definitions mean in a Biblical context. But you're right, it has nothing at all to do with a flat earth.

 

[Amill]

How exactly is the earth suspended in space anyways? It's moving through space at over 2 million km per hour.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Back to DNA

There are viruses, like some influenza, and HIV that are retroviruses. These viruses are RNA, and reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome.
These can lay dormant for years, then activate and start producing more RNA, which in turn inserts itself into host DNA.
However, if the retrovirus does not activate, this life cycle can fail. The infected cell is left with inert viral sequences scattered throughout its genome.
Now if this cell happens to be a sperm or egg cell, this inert viral sequence is passed on through reproduction to the descendants of the original host.
These "ghosts" of infections past are called endogenous retrovirus or ERVs.
An ERV found in the same DNA location in two people provides powerful evidence, admissible in court, that they share a common ancestor.
All humans share many ERVs in identical locations, showing we all have a common ancestor. Creationist will agree to this also.
What is often ignored is that humans and chimps share many of these ERVs. Proving that both species share a common ancestor.
The human and chimp genomes have been sequenced over the last decade, and a dozen seperate ERVs (hundreds of repeats each) have been found to be identical in both genomes, in exactly the same locations.
When these sequences are checked for time of introduction, they indicate a common ancestor five to seven million years ago. This is consistent with other molecular divergence studies and the fossil record.


PLoS ONE: Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees and Rhesus Monkeys
Tempo and mode of ERV-K evolution in human and chimpanzee genomes