Denali Expedition 2008 - Looking for 10-12 member

[pink]

who created god?

[tvashtarkatena]

who created god?

 

Our minds are too small to comprehend that. Our minds are just big enough to comprehend that we can't comprehend that, however.

[pink]

who created god?

 

Our minds are too small to comprehend that. Our minds are just big enough to comprehend that we can't comprehend that, however.

 

SURVEY SAYS

8xxkLUouvek

 

 

Edited December 20, 2007 by pink

[JayB]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

[pink]

jDpOueUOt0A

[vertical_hiker]

Evolution is a bad theory that got a lot of hype in the 1925 scopes trial, where some putz didn't know how to defend himself, and all the evidence the evolutionist teacher used is now debunk. Many are still trying to keep it alive, while everybody else in the world is figuring this theory is no longer holding water...

You are totally delusional! There is not one credible scientist in the world who does not believe that evolution is a good theory and there is little chance of that ever changing. I'd love to write a long diatribe arguing the point but I know it will fall on deaf ears.

 

I actually had some sympathy for you in the first 9 pages I read but I had to skip to the end and see that you are insulting what I hold dear and that is scientific research. I thought "Hey, maybe he does just want to find some climbing buddies interested in Christ." but arguing Intelligent Design in your own thread removes whatever credibility you had when JosephH launched the first attack.

 

You want facts about evolution? Here is a website devoted entirely to those who think just like yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

in particular

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

 

There are many Christians that think that evolution is a good theory and that literal interpretations of the Bible are foolish. How can one selectively declare what is literal and what isn't in the Bible? It's all or nothing because otherwise it isn't the true word of god, it's an interpretation by man.

 

There I go. I said I wouldn't argue but I just couldn't help myself.

 

You are correct. There are some people who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and they are usually labeled liberals, but you are incorrect to say many Christians believe in Evolution, there is a group that believes the possibility of seven million year earth, as opposed to 7 day earth, but I have to say, it doesn't matter, nor was anybody there to watch. God did it. That's what matters. I believe in 7 day, not just because it's says in Genesis "Day", and not just that the context there supports it by saying "there was a morning and and an evening, and there was the next day," but the fact that Jesus in the new testament refers to it as a 7-day period (and since He is God in flesh,) that pretty much to me affirms that it was 7-days literally.

 

But again, I wasn't there, so I don't truly know, nor do Scientist because they can't test it. They weren't there. Science used to date the earth by carbon dating, but that only works up to something like 50,000 years (and since water taints the testing, speeds up the life) that version of dating the earth is ill-equipped to measure the age of the earth. Bottom line, we're all going to find out later what happens. Even though some people believe differently, that is perfectly fine for me. We can differ and still be good friends.

 

I had to chime in here with a minor point about the testability of scientific theories.

 

There some theories that you can test by observation, others that you can't. Those theories that can't be tested by direct observation and measurement can still be tested by the extent to which they make useful, verifiable predictions.

 

One of the many predictions of evolutionary theory was that evolutionary relationships should persist at the molecular level. For instance - the hemoglobin molecules generated by humans should more closely resemble the hemoglobin molecules of lemurs than, say - lampreys. These predictions were made several decades before scientists had the technology necessary to test them directly, and well before DNA had been identified as the agent of heredity. The fact that this prediction was borne out by empirical evidence several decades later provides one of many strong lines of evidence in support of the original theory. The case is even stronger when one considers the evidence provided by DNA sequencing.

 

Speaking of DNA - were you aware of the fact that nearly one-half of the human genome is composed of ancient retroviruses (or similar self-repicating elements) that integrated into our genetic material millions of years before the arrival of modern humans? That they splice themselves into a new locale in the genome something like every 30-250 live births? That when these endogenous retroviruses replicate and insert themselves into the genome, they quite often damage the hosts by cripling and turning off necessary genes, or activating quiescent genes in a way that can give rise to cancer and other disorders? That the reason that primates can't synthesize their own vitamin C is because one of these retroelements spliced itself into the middle of a gene that encodes an enzyme required for the biosynthesis of this vitamin? Is any of this consistent with the notion of intelligent design?

 

"The eukaryotic genome has undergone a series of epidemics of amplification of mobile elements that have resulted in most eukaryotic genomes containing much more of this `junk' DNA than actual coding DNA. The majority of these elements utilize an RNA intermediate and are termed retroelements. Most of these retroelements appear to amplify in evolutionary waves that insert in the genome and then gradually diverge. In humans, almost half of the genome is recognizably derived from retroelements, with the two elements that are currently actively amplifying, L1 and Alu, making up about 25% of the genome and contributing extensively to disease. The mechanisms of this amplification process are beginning to be understood, although there are still more questions than answers. Insertion of new retroelements may directly damage the genome, and the presence of multiple copies of these elements throughout the genome has longer-term influences on recombination events in the genome and more subtle influences on gene expression."

 

Read the whole thing.

 

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/10/1455

 

 

yes, I understand most of what you said, although, I know that style of writing, you didn't necessarily need to show off in order to prove yourself, though it did sound cool. You bring this before a jury, and they won't buy into it, not enough evidence. You had me for a while until you said retroelements and millions of years. That's the problem. Scientists cannot put together a theory like this and with a non-empirical interpretation throw in millions of years ago, when there are too many problems and questions with this research, since there's so much still to discover about the human body, and the viruses are so unpredictable on how it will treat the body, how the body will react. I'll research that more though.

[sexual_chocolate]

When God comes in the picture it all makes sense. He's the designer, and we're the design. Simple.

 

 

How could a designer with the powers you speak of screw up this bad? Seems like your god is a practical joker, and a sadist to boot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I respectfully await your reply.

[vertical_hiker]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

Again, talkorigins believes in evolution, so of course they are biased, and I can show you a page that will refute that information. That's not necessary though, all I have to say is, I'm still looking for the fossil records (not a few arguable picky ones). Talkorigin is not able to produce a strong argument out of this one, and provides weak to none evidence of fossils.

 

a. Family Ancestry: Hmm, a few monkeys from Africa.

b. Horns from who knows what (but they interpret for us)

c and d. are interpreted transitional forms,...

e.f., and so on...

 

Really, there is not much here. They also relist some already listed in the list.

 

Seriously, my point, evolutionists appear desperate, grasping at straws, I mean come on, there ought to be thousands upon thousands of transitional forms everywhere in our museums, not a small particle webpage devoted to a few arguable fossils. Wake up man, with a quarter of a million species that exist today, there actually should be millions upon millions of transitional forms, fossils, variations of trans-species walking around, not just straight species everywhere, horses, dogs, humans, etc,. Seriously, we should see it everywhere on earth, it should be normal,...but we don't, we totally don't, and I am so dead on right with this, there is no way you can tweak this argument to an evolutionist's benefit because if Talkorigins doesn't provide enough evidence for the fossil record, nobody does. This IS the best evidence for evolution, yet this is exactly what they lack, and is exactly what they need to convince the rest of the world. Can anyone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[sexual_chocolate]

i wonder why no reply to the above anomalous pictures of god-designed humans?

 

i try to think about this through the eyes of a creationist who believes in a perfect god that designed us, but can't quite come up with an explanation that works.

 

can't you, vertical hiker, help? (pretend i'm on a mountain, maybe denali, and you are on a mission to help).

[vertical_hiker]

you know, I'm done here. It was fun chatting with you all. You make for great conversations. It's great that we can have different beliefs and still chat, and have no bitterness towards anyone. I was only here for a denali trip, and now, this forum has sucked me in too far. Hope to climb with you all in the mountains someday. Denali 2008.

 

my email if you have questions: denalisummit@yahoo.com

[vertical_hiker]

i wonder why no reply to the above anomalous pictures of god-designed humans?

 

i try to think about this through the eyes of a creationist who believes in a perfect god that designed us, but can't quite come up with an explanation that works.

 

can't you, vertical hiker, help? (pretend i'm on a mountain, maybe denali, and you are on a mission to help).

sorry, last post (as I saw before leaving), Yes, that's easy Chocolate. God is perfect, He created perfect beings and perfect land, and then Adam and Eve messed it all up for all of us. Sin entered, and so did corruption into the human race. That's why God came to us, to restore and redeem humanity. Hope that helps. cya.

[pink]

wow, that explains everything.

 

thanks,

[AlpineK]

He never bothered to explain how his group was going to assist other climbers who might be hurt on the mountain. I mean what kind of medical expertise does his group bring to Denali?

 

Also he never addressed the coolest expedition ever done hundreds of years ago by Dante with an angel for a guide.

 

 

I find it interesting that vertical hiker starts with the letter v as does the guide Vigil in Dante's expedition.

[JayB]

Evolution is a bad theory that got a lot of hype in the 1925 scopes trial, where some putz didn't know how to defend himself, and all the evidence the evolutionist teacher used is now debunk. Many are still trying to keep it alive, while everybody else in the world is figuring this theory is no longer holding water...

You are totally delusional! There is not one credible scientist in the world who does not believe that evolution is a good theory and there is little chance of that ever changing. I'd love to write a long diatribe arguing the point but I know it will fall on deaf ears.

 

I actually had some sympathy for you in the first 9 pages I read but I had to skip to the end and see that you are insulting what I hold dear and that is scientific research. I thought "Hey, maybe he does just want to find some climbing buddies interested in Christ." but arguing Intelligent Design in your own thread removes whatever credibility you had when JosephH launched the first attack.

 

You want facts about evolution? Here is a website devoted entirely to those who think just like yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

in particular

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

 

There are many Christians that think that evolution is a good theory and that literal interpretations of the Bible are foolish. How can one selectively declare what is literal and what isn't in the Bible? It's all or nothing because otherwise it isn't the true word of god, it's an interpretation by man.

 

There I go. I said I wouldn't argue but I just couldn't help myself.

 

You are correct. There are some people who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and they are usually labeled liberals, but you are incorrect to say many Christians believe in Evolution, there is a group that believes the possibility of seven million year earth, as opposed to 7 day earth, but I have to say, it doesn't matter, nor was anybody there to watch. God did it. That's what matters. I believe in 7 day, not just because it's says in Genesis "Day", and not just that the context there supports it by saying "there was a morning and and an evening, and there was the next day," but the fact that Jesus in the new testament refers to it as a 7-day period (and since He is God in flesh,) that pretty much to me affirms that it was 7-days literally.

 

But again, I wasn't there, so I don't truly know, nor do Scientist because they can't test it. They weren't there. Science used to date the earth by carbon dating, but that only works up to something like 50,000 years (and since water taints the testing, speeds up the life) that version of dating the earth is ill-equipped to measure the age of the earth. Bottom line, we're all going to find out later what happens. Even though some people believe differently, that is perfectly fine for me. We can differ and still be good friends.

 

I had to chime in here with a minor point about the testability of scientific theories.

 

There some theories that you can test by observation, others that you can't. Those theories that can't be tested by direct observation and measurement can still be tested by the extent to which they make useful, verifiable predictions.

 

One of the many predictions of evolutionary theory was that evolutionary relationships should persist at the molecular level. For instance - the hemoglobin molecules generated by humans should more closely resemble the hemoglobin molecules of lemurs than, say - lampreys. These predictions were made several decades before scientists had the technology necessary to test them directly, and well before DNA had been identified as the agent of heredity. The fact that this prediction was borne out by empirical evidence several decades later provides one of many strong lines of evidence in support of the original theory. The case is even stronger when one considers the evidence provided by DNA sequencing.

 

Speaking of DNA - were you aware of the fact that nearly one-half of the human genome is composed of ancient retroviruses (or similar self-repicating elements) that integrated into our genetic material millions of years before the arrival of modern humans? That they splice themselves into a new locale in the genome something like every 30-250 live births? That when these endogenous retroviruses replicate and insert themselves into the genome, they quite often damage the hosts by cripling and turning off necessary genes, or activating quiescent genes in a way that can give rise to cancer and other disorders? That the reason that primates can't synthesize their own vitamin C is because one of these retroelements spliced itself into the middle of a gene that encodes an enzyme required for the biosynthesis of this vitamin? Is any of this consistent with the notion of intelligent design?

 

"The eukaryotic genome has undergone a series of epidemics of amplification of mobile elements that have resulted in most eukaryotic genomes containing much more of this `junk' DNA than actual coding DNA. The majority of these elements utilize an RNA intermediate and are termed retroelements. Most of these retroelements appear to amplify in evolutionary waves that insert in the genome and then gradually diverge. In humans, almost half of the genome is recognizably derived from retroelements, with the two elements that are currently actively amplifying, L1 and Alu, making up about 25% of the genome and contributing extensively to disease. The mechanisms of this amplification process are beginning to be understood, although there are still more questions than answers. Insertion of new retroelements may directly damage the genome, and the presence of multiple copies of these elements throughout the genome has longer-term influences on recombination events in the genome and more subtle influences on gene expression."

 

Read the whole thing.

 

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/10/1455

 

 

yes, I understand most of what you said, although, I know that style of writing, you didn't necessarily need to show off in order to prove yourself, though it did sound cool. You bring this before a jury, and they won't buy into it, not enough evidence. You had me for a while until you said retroelements and millions of years. That's the problem. Scientists cannot put together a theory like this and with a non-empirical interpretation throw in millions of years ago, when there are too many problems and questions with this research, since there's so much still to discover about the human body, and the viruses are so unpredictable on how it will treat the body, how the body will react. I'll research that more though.

 

 

VH:

 

In case you are still reading, if not necessarily responding, to this thread, I thought that I'd respond briefly.

 

Even though the theory of evolution was formulated long before people understood the biochemical basis by which genetic information is passed from one generation to the next, and roughly 130 years before we had the capacity to sequence DNA and begin to glimpse at the structure of the genome - their discovery in the genome and data that they provide are completely consistent with the theory of evolution, and provide a more complete picture of how it works.

 

More specifically, you can compare the number, type, and location of retroelement insertion sites and determine important information about when species diverged from one another. The fact that all primates, but no other mammals, have the same retroelement in the middle of the gene that encodes an enzyme required for biosynthesis of vitamin C tells us that this modification of the genome occured sometime after our common ancestor diverged from mammals, but before all modern primates diverged from one another.

 

Since this retroelement DNA doesn't encode for useful genes, it's not subject to the same selective pressures as genes that species need to survive. Therefore it can accumulate mutations with a much lower probability that the mutations will affect the individual organism's survival. Consequently, mutations accumulate in retroelement DNA at a fairly constant rate over time, and we can examine the number of mutations in a given section of retroelement DNA in order to determine roughly how long it's been in the genome.

 

Since these retroelements are so potentially destructive, primates (and some other species) have evolved an elaborate set of mechanisms to disrupt the processes by which retroelements make additional copies of themselves and splice themselves into our DNA. These have only been discovered in the past few years, because of their activity against contagious retroviruses like HIV. The same proteins that protect the genome against the viruses that spliced themselves into our genome long ago are also active against viruses in the environment that use similar mechanisms to splice into our DNA and hijack the cell to make many more copies of themselves.

 

In this single piece of biology you have a set of empirically verifiable biochemical and genetic data and phenomena that simply can't be rationally be accounted for by any other mechanism other than evolution. Even if you are tempted to believe in say, intelligent design, it's difficult to conceive of someone accounting for these phenomena - a genome racked with parasitic, destructive, self-replicating elements that hijack the mechanisms cells normally use to survive to reproduce themselves, which result in defects that are passed down from one generation to the next for all of eternity - by recourse to an intelligent design with a strait face.

 

You seem like a nice guy, I appreciate the way you've borne the onslaught here, and I hope that you will continue to read in an effort to understand as much modern biology as you have time for, so that you're thinking about these questions will be informed by the most accurate information we have about the natural world. I'd suggest reading the paper that I linked, and then getting yourself a copy of "The Cell" and devoting a year to reading it, then returning to these questions.

[kevbone]

Next time I go climbing I am going to make it in the name of Satan.....

That just doesn't make any sense.

If there is a Satan then there is by implication, a God.

 

Maybe to you it would imply God.....not to me. You can have one without the other.....ever heard of George Bush? Satan!

[kevbone]

you're quickly catching up to kevbone

 

HOW DARE YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT? He surpased me long ago.....

 

 

 

 

I go to bed last night and 3 pages go by in the night.....jeez.....stop already.

[minx]

yes kevbone, the world does go on w/o you.

[hafilax]

Thanks JayB.

[Bug]

Next time I go climbing I am going to make it in the name of Satan.....

That just doesn't make any sense.

If there is a Satan then there is by implication, a God.

 

Maybe to you it would imply God.....not to me. You can have one without the other.....ever heard of George Bush? Satan!

 

[Bug]

When God comes in the picture it all makes sense. He's the designer, and we're the design. Simple.

 

 

How could a designer with the powers you speak of screw up this bad? Seems like your god is a practical joker, and a sadist to boot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I respectfully await your reply.

Perhaps if you were really respectful, you would not have called him a dumbass at the end of your post. Your behavior is semi-acceptable here but to a newcomer who is used to a normal world, your abusiveness might seem inappropriate and a little intimidating. Why should he "respect" your question if you call him a dumbass?

Maybe you are just socially challenged?

Tvash, (for example) argues and criticizes withoug being brutally abusive. Can you see the difference?

[Bug]

you're quickly catching up to kevbone

 

HOW DARE YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT? He surpased me long ago.....

 

 

 

 

I go to bed last night and 3 pages go by in the night.....jeez.....stop already.

Rest easy there. Your banality is insurpassable.

Minx was just caught up in the moment.

I had just compared her to choclate mousse and she was fighting the urge to ask me out.

[StevenSeagal]

sorry, last post (as I saw before leaving), Yes, that's easy Chocolate. God is perfect, He created perfect beingsand perfect land, and then Adam and Eve messed it all up for all of us. Sin entered, and so did corruption into the human race. That's why God came to us, to restore and redeem humanity. Hope that helps. cya.

 

Except Adam and Eve. The old guy seems to have really screwed up here.

 

Guess he ain't Above the Law.

 

 

 

[underworld]

is chuck norris proof of evolution or proof of creationism?

 

discuss...

[Bug]

i wonder why no reply to the above anomalous pictures of god-designed humans?

 

i try to think about this through the eyes of a creationist who believes in a perfect god that designed us, but can't quite come up with an explanation that works.

 

can't you, vertical hiker, help? (pretend i'm on a mountain, maybe denali, and you are on a mission to help).

sorry, last post (as I saw before leaving), Yes, that's easy Chocolate. God is perfect, He created perfect beings and perfect land, and then Adam and Eve messed it all up for all of us. Sin entered, and so did corruption into the human race. That's why God came to us, to restore and redeem humanity. Hope that helps. cya.

Hey VH, Thanks for stopping by and joining our little world.

We really are good people with hearts and ethics. This board is just an easy place to open the floodgates of our deepest impulses. As such, it is a grand experiment in social conditioning. Your participation, however accidental, will be remembered for a long time.

May God bless your Denali expedition.

[olyclimber]

Evolution is a bad theory that got a lot of hype in the 1925 scopes trial, where some putz didn't know how to defend himself, and all the evidence the evolutionist teacher used is now debunk. Many are still trying to keep it alive, while everybody else in the world is figuring this theory is no longer holding water...

You are totally delusional! There is not one credible scientist in the world who does not believe that evolution is a good theory and there is little chance of that ever changing. I'd love to write a long diatribe arguing the point but I know it will fall on deaf ears.

 

I actually had some sympathy for you in the first 9 pages I read but I had to skip to the end and see that you are insulting what I hold dear and that is scientific research. I thought "Hey, maybe he does just want to find some climbing buddies interested in Christ." but arguing Intelligent Design in your own thread removes whatever credibility you had when JosephH launched the first attack.

 

You want facts about evolution? Here is a website devoted entirely to those who think just like yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

in particular

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

 

There are many Christians that think that evolution is a good theory and that literal interpretations of the Bible are foolish. How can one selectively declare what is literal and what isn't in the Bible? It's all or nothing because otherwise it isn't the true word of god, it's an interpretation by man.

 

There I go. I said I wouldn't argue but I just couldn't help myself.

 

You are correct. There are some people who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and they are usually labeled liberals, but you are incorrect to say many Christians believe in Evolution, there is a group that believes the possibility of seven million year earth, as opposed to 7 day earth, but I have to say, it doesn't matter, nor was anybody there to watch. God did it. That's what matters. I believe in 7 day, not just because it's says in Genesis "Day", and not just that the context there supports it by saying "there was a morning and and an evening, and there was the next day," but the fact that Jesus in the new testament refers to it as a 7-day period (and since He is God in flesh,) that pretty much to me affirms that it was 7-days literally.

 

But again, I wasn't there, so I don't truly know, nor do Scientist because they can't test it. They weren't there. Science used to date the earth by carbon dating, but that only works up to something like 50,000 years (and since water taints the testing, speeds up the life) that version of dating the earth is ill-equipped to measure the age of the earth. Bottom line, we're all going to find out later what happens. Even though some people believe differently, that is perfectly fine for me. We can differ and still be good friends.

 

I had to chime in here with a minor point about the testability of scientific theories.

 

There some theories that you can test by observation, others that you can't. Those theories that can't be tested by direct observation and measurement can still be tested by the extent to which they make useful, verifiable predictions.

 

One of the many predictions of evolutionary theory was that evolutionary relationships should persist at the molecular level. For instance - the hemoglobin molecules generated by humans should more closely resemble the hemoglobin molecules of lemurs than, say - lampreys. These predictions were made several decades before scientists had the technology necessary to test them directly, and well before DNA had been identified as the agent of heredity. The fact that this prediction was borne out by empirical evidence several decades later provides one of many strong lines of evidence in support of the original theory. The case is even stronger when one considers the evidence provided by DNA sequencing.

 

Speaking of DNA - were you aware of the fact that nearly one-half of the human genome is composed of ancient retroviruses (or similar self-repicating elements) that integrated into our genetic material millions of years before the arrival of modern humans? That they splice themselves into a new locale in the genome something like every 30-250 live births? That when these endogenous retroviruses replicate and insert themselves into the genome, they quite often damage the hosts by cripling and turning off necessary genes, or activating quiescent genes in a way that can give rise to cancer and other disorders? That the reason that primates can't synthesize their own vitamin C is because one of these retroelements spliced itself into the middle of a gene that encodes an enzyme required for the biosynthesis of this vitamin? Is any of this consistent with the notion of intelligent design?

 

"The eukaryotic genome has undergone a series of epidemics of amplification of mobile elements that have resulted in most eukaryotic genomes containing much more of this `junk' DNA than actual coding DNA. The majority of these elements utilize an RNA intermediate and are termed retroelements. Most of these retroelements appear to amplify in evolutionary waves that insert in the genome and then gradually diverge. In humans, almost half of the genome is recognizably derived from retroelements, with the two elements that are currently actively amplifying, L1 and Alu, making up about 25% of the genome and contributing extensively to disease. The mechanisms of this amplification process are beginning to be understood, although there are still more questions than answers. Insertion of new retroelements may directly damage the genome, and the presence of multiple copies of these elements throughout the genome has longer-term influences on recombination events in the genome and more subtle influences on gene expression."

 

Read the whole thing.

 

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/10/1455

 

 

yes, I understand most of what you said, although, I know that style of writing, you didn't necessarily need to show off in order to prove yourself, though it did sound cool. You bring this before a jury, and they won't buy into it, not enough evidence. You had me for a while until you said retroelements and millions of years. That's the problem. Scientists cannot put together a theory like this and with a non-empirical interpretation throw in millions of years ago, when there are too many problems and questions with this research, since there's so much still to discover about the human body, and the viruses are so unpredictable on how it will treat the body, how the body will react. I'll research that more though.

 

 

VH:

 

In case you are still reading, if not necessarily responding, to this thread, I thought that I'd respond briefly.

 

Even though the theory of evolution was formulated long before people understood the biochemical basis by which genetic information is passed from one generation to the next, and roughly 130 years before we had the capacity to sequence DNA and begin to glimpse at the structure of the genome - their discovery in the genome and data that they provide are completely consistent with the theory of evolution, and provide a more complete picture of how it works.

 

More specifically, you can compare the number, type, and location of retroelement insertion sites and determine important information about when species diverged from one another. The fact that all primates, but no other mammals, have the same retroelement in the middle of the gene that encodes an enzyme required for biosynthesis of vitamin C tells us that this modification of the genome occured sometime after our common ancestor diverged from mammals, but before all modern primates diverged from one another.

 

Since this retroelement DNA doesn't encode for useful genes, it's not subject to the same selective pressures as genes that species need to survive. Therefore it can accumulate mutations with a much lower probability that the mutations will affect the individual organism's survival. Consequently, mutations accumulate in retroelement DNA at a fairly constant rate over time, and we can examine the number of mutations in a given section of retroelement DNA in order to determine roughly how long it's been in the genome.

 

Since these retroelements are so potentially destructive, primates (and some other species) have evolved an elaborate set of mechanisms to disrupt the processes by which retroelements make additional copies of themselves and splice themselves into our DNA. These have only been discovered in the past few years, because of their activity against contagious retroviruses like HIV. The same proteins that protect the genome against the viruses that spliced themselves into our genome long ago are also active against viruses in the environment that use similar mechanisms to splice into our DNA and hijack the cell to make many more copies of themselves.

 

In this single piece of biology you have a set of empirically verifiable biochemical and genetic data and phenomena that simply can't be rationally be accounted for by any other mechanism other than evolution. Even if you are tempted to believe in say, intelligent design, it's difficult to conceive of someone accounting for these phenomena - a genome racked with parasitic, destructive, self-replicating elements that hijack the mechanisms cells normally use to survive to reproduce themselves, which result in defects that are passed down from one generation to the next for all of eternity - by recourse to an intelligent design with a strait face.

 

You seem like a nice guy, I appreciate the way you've borne the onslaught here, and I hope that you will continue to read in an effort to understand as much modern biology as you have time for, so that you're thinking about these questions will be informed by the most accurate information we have about the natural world. I'd suggest reading the paper that I linked, and then getting yourself a copy of "The Cell" and devoting a year to reading it, then returning to these questions.

 

but that isn't to say that GOD didn't pull the strings on this evolution thing. HIS WISDOM IS INFINITE, YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT. So explain away, but GOD is just messing with your head. You are BUT hiz lil toy soldier.