Old earth creationists either rely on outside authorities & eisegesis or run away. They can never show from the Bible that the Earth is old
15
1
20
895
I'm not necessarily an "old world creationist" but I both accept the obviousness of evolution and an old world, and the possibility of a recent creator.
The Bible allows for both.
The Bible doesn't require that the earth LOOKS like it was created 6000 years ago.
1
35
Like how literally every line of evidence converges on the same ~4.5 Billions years for the age of the earth and evolution.
Endogenous retroviral insertions alone have no good creationist rebuttal.
3
29
ERVs?!?!? 🙄
You are in for some education. If you need more education, ask @SFT_Ministries
youtu.be/b4wjQfc2hH8
1
1
60
We have books, videos, debates, presentations and published peer reviewed papers on ERVs from the creationists view. More than enough for a skeptic
1
1
39
Give me the crux of your argument.
1. Are you claiming that sequences of LTR-gag-pol-env-LTR are not retroviral insertions?
1
36
In the creation model, many retrovirus-like genomic elements originated as intrinsic, designed components of created organisms, functioning in regulation, development, genomic restructuring, and controlled generation of variation. It’s escape/progressive version of virus origins.
1
60
Non-created/acquired ERVs are primarily the unfixed, polymorphic elements that differ among individuals or populations. These are accepted as genuine later retroviral insertions arising from exogenous viral activity after creation.
1
65
So then your argument is that endogenous retroviral insertions cannot become fixed in the population. And every sequence that evolutionists point to as ancient ERVs (the majority having no function) are actually design features.
1
44
Yes? No? Maybe?
We can extend this a bit further then and say that it must be mere coincidence that the map of known shared ERVs in primates aligns almost perfectly with phylogenetic trees based on traits, and the relative dating of the fossil records?
1
43
I'm a little disappointed...
@ApoloJedi_ had me expecting to get educated. So far all I've seen is denial of evidence and special pleading.
I would like to know how you square your assertion that RV insertions *CAN NOT* fix with the fact that the KoVR is currently fixing.
1
59
...and KoRV is extremely harmful to koalas. So it's very bad for your position that we are observing it happening in real time.
On the other hand, you have ~380 viruses in your body right now.
The number of viruses that are actually harmful is statistically zero.
2
58
We know empirically that the fixation rate of a neutral allele is
1/2N.
So that makes it statistically inevitable that some number of ERVs will fix because the vast majority of RV insertions will not impact reproductive fitness.
1
37
We don’t run from debate we just don’t have them in common sections where no one can see them. You do live debates with us or nothing at all.
1
22
🤣 riiiiiight.
Homie, when I was in highschool (a Christian school) Answers in Genesis sent an apologist to the school who offered to debate a student live on the chapel stage on evolution.
I was elected by the school to participate. I absolutely eviscerated her.
1
35
Good you should be brave enough to debate then. We will be waiting. The fact you don’t even know the basics about our position doesn’t instill any confidence at all.
But I guess we will see if you are brave enough. Go tell James on MDD and we will add you to the list.
1
2
34
I already refuted the basics of your position. That's why you stopped responding.
Your position is dead on arrival.
It relies on plainly false assumptions.
A decent 10% of your "lecture" was just talking about how much time you have previously spent lecturing.
1
37
I already told you we don’t debate in comment sections that’s pathetic. What loser has that amount amount of time anyway anyway? We are professional debate ministry and have been for six years. Step up or run away I don’t care.
1
2
44
If you want to be made to look like a fool, then contact James at modern day debate and set it up. There’s no need to waste time complaining to me. I don’t care. I do this for a living and have a debate coming up soon. You’re low on my radar.
1
1
44
So in other words you don't actually give a damn about truth, you have a grift to maintain. Got it.
I am a degreed biologist and a pharmaceutical manufacturing engineer. I make life saving medicine everyday utilizing science built on evolution. Podcasting isn't a real job.
2
1
30
You sound like a genius! Why are you scared to debate @SFT_Ministries ?
4
1
57
These guys always make me laugh lol so brave until it’s time to actually step up and debate. They go running and here he was giving me cricket sounds lol
2
1
38
He's got a degree in biology!!!
youtu.be/oFXIALf9zDA
2
1
73
He blocked me and stopped responding to very simple questions, but I'm the scared one.
Sometimes I wish there was actually a hell so I could say,
"Go to hell."
2
20
Tolerant?
No, you don't engage, then backtrack and demand a change of forum and an enormous time investment for any further engagement and then try to reframe me as a coward for taking issue with your manipulation tactics.
Y'all modelled your "ministry" after Satan. Irony.
1
18
Lies and deceit in the face of good faith truth-seeking dialogue is not of God.
It's an Internet-age grift.
It's all rhetoric and no substance.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
1
13
If evolution were true, how does natural selection preserve the trait of being "ashamed"?
Because of course we would assume that being ashamed lowers reproductive fitness, and those with the ability to be ashamed would be culled from the gene pool. Yet, shame persists. How do you explain this contradiction?
1
15
Shame is an emotion that serves to socially coordinate behavior.
Without shame you cannot organize a society.
Individuals with a low capacity for shame thrive in isolation, therefore a variability in that trait is preserved in the population.
Good faith answers aren't hard.
1
7
Those answers are stories about how traits might work in the present, but do not explain how natural selection acting on random mutations produced the ability to feel shame in creatures that did not have shame...nor the corresponding trait of reproductive benefit from other representatives of the species to deny fitness to the creature which suddenly appeared to exhibit shame
Evolution is all story-telling...all the way down
🐢
🐢
🐢
🐢
🐢
🐢
🐢
🐢
🐢
🐢
🐢
🐢
Sep 30, 2026 · 6:31 PM UTC
1
19