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
What do you mean when you say: "obviousness of evolution and an old world"?
1
40
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
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.

Sep 28, 2026 · 9:21 PM UTC

1
65
Sort replies: Relevant Recent Liked
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