Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Researchers: Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah

Expand Messages
  • Stephen
    *A clay tablet that has baffled scientists for 150 years has been identified as a witness s account of the asteroid suspected of being behind the destruction
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 1 7:31 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      *A clay tablet that has baffled scientists for 150 years has been
      identified as a witness's account of the asteroid suspected of being
      behind the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343674,00.html

      Stephen
      *
    • pk4_paul
      ... to ... of sperm or eggs in order to be passed ... Infection is not random with respect to species. Immunological responses vary from one species to
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 6 11:37 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "tylerdemerchant"
        <tylerdemerchant@...> wrote:
        >
        > This is exactly what I am sugesting, though have there been papers
        to
        > show that viruses are selective.
        >
        > Viruses are not living organisms. They enter the body and then find
        > their way into a cell because the immune system does not recognize
        > them. They have to infect the germline or during the developement
        of sperm or eggs in order to be passed
        > onto the child. If anything, the
        > cell would be selective of where it places the DNA.

        Infection is not random with respect to species. Immunological
        responses vary from one species to another and a pathogen that might
        cause an infection in species x could be neutralized in species y.
        >
        > I have a hard time believing that the cell would plant a retrovirus
        > in a random location. If this were so, than every humans DNA should
        > be dramatically different.

        There are genomic locations that are preferential as far as the
        insertion location is concerned. But it may not be the virus itself
        that is inserted but rather genomic sequences coming about through
        the hijacking of the host transcription function. Such inserts are
        then theorized to relocate throughout the genome perhaps randomly
        perhaps not.

        Paul
        >
        > I want to right a paper on this subject, but I want to spark more
        > interest and debate in the subject first. I would love to hear what
        > Ashcraft has to say.
        >
        > --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Creager Jr" <cpcjr@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > The key assumption in Evolutionists claims about ERVs is that
        they
        > would
        > > insert themselves into a random location within a genome. This
        > assumption is
        > > questionable however, since there is evidence that they are
        > selective.
        > > However even if the insertion was random the locations where they
        > are not
        > > harmful may be few.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > _____
        > >
        > > From: tylerdemerchant
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Thankyou all those who have posted comments so far aswell as
        links.
        > > I received a private e-mail regarding the issue with some more
        links
        > >
        > > http://www.answersi
        > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp>
        > > ngenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp
        > > http://www.answersi
        > > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-
        chimp-
        > dna>
        > > ngenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna
        > > http://www.answersi
        > > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0802human-evolution.asp>
        > > ngenesis.org/docs2006/0802human-evolution.asp
        > >
        > > I would very much like people to discuss this, as these are not
        > > exactly issues that I have from misunderstanding, but I think it
        is
        > > important to discuss key evolutionary theories for common decent.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
      • tylerdemerchant
        ... might ... Yes I understand this. I am merely questioning the location of these inserted DNA pieces. ... retrovirus ... should ... This is what I am
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 7 12:07 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > Infection is not random with respect to species. Immunological
          > responses vary from one species to another and a pathogen that
          might
          > cause an infection in species x could be neutralized in species y.

          Yes I understand this. I am merely questioning the location of
          these "inserted" DNA pieces.
          > >
          > > I have a hard time believing that the cell would plant a
          retrovirus
          > > in a random location. If this were so, than every humans DNA
          should
          > > be dramatically different.
          >
          > There are genomic locations that are preferential as far as the
          > insertion location is concerned.
          This is what I am implying. If primates and humans share similar DNA,
          then it would seem plausible that these preferential locations would
          be similar in both primates and humans, showing common "infection"
          persay, not common descent.

          >But it may not be the virus itself
          > that is inserted but rather genomic sequences coming about through
          > the hijacking of the host transcription function. Such inserts are
          > then theorized to relocate throughout the genome perhaps randomly
          > perhaps not.
          > Paul

          Yes this makes sense. However, this is assuming the nature of viruses
          to be random. Ashcraft has pointed out possible original design
          purposes. It is important to remember that the virus is non-living,
          thus, it is subject to the cells machinery. I dont know what the cell
          says..."Oh, theres some DNA, better do what it says". Thus, the cell
          is basically allowing the DNA to be implimented into itself. So it
          seems to me two majour possibilities.
          1. The random replications possition themselves in particularly
          random locations, subsiquently undergoing natural selection(HIV
          destroys host), repair mechanisms(irradication of retrovirus from
          replication), or neutralization(endigenous state). Consiquently,
          retroviral DNA becomes focused on particular locci where elimination
          process does not occur, forcing similar locci of endigenous
          retrovirus on commonly infected baramin with similar genetic makeup.
          2. Designed purpose of endigenous DNA not retroviral, but assumed to
          be because of similar structure and inactivation. Retroviral nature
          must be assumed, as it represents no difference from normal DNA
          (correct me if I am wrong here). Thus, majority of ERV's are original
          genes in baramin with similar genetic makeup.

          The question remains... Will neanderthals have these ERV's, which
          moves us onto Neanderthals.

          Any further discussion on ERV's is definately welcome.
        • Stephen
          *Scientific American published a commentary called Summarized Cinema in which the author gives a one line plot summary of famous films. It is meant to be
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 9 6:15 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            *Scientific American published a commentary called "Summarized Cinema"
            in which the author gives a one line plot summary of famous films. It
            is meant to be funny, but this one betrays the author's bias:

            Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed*
            A sad sack seeks a way to turn back time so he can live in the Dark Ages.

            *Stephen*
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.