By the same token, one can probably prove polygamy from Genesis 1:1. It does not state anything, but bless God, I am sure the truth is in there.

So, OK. Jesus did not say it.

How you can say that men lived at least 200,000 years without having any record of it is the mother of all mysteries. Congratulations, you have more faith than me.

Ha! So you plagiarized someone's question. You tell me where I took my answer, monkey, until then, stay with the points. Besides, whether or not I plagiarized someone else's response does not make the answer incorrect. This is not a term paper, so grow up and get over it. Apparently these smokescreens and strawmen is all you have presented to the discussion. You answer a question with a question and after giving you an answer you ignore it for the plagiarism strawmen.

Sorry, to break it to you my monkey friend. But you do not control this dialogue. It's out of the pure kindness of our heart that any here should at all give you the slightest attention. Personally, I do it for pure entertainment. For anyone that thinks that his great grandad was a lice-pinking tree-hanging monkey must really be a showcase.

Stop ignoring the objection and insisting on creating a strawman. You know better than that.

If you are going to insist that death is inability than you are going to have to provide something more tenable than a flimsy analogical comparison. I believe that spiritual death is a spiritual reality, so the truth is something truth of itself not because one can find similarities with a dead corpse.

I have demonstrated to you that your definition of death is a definition fabricated by Calvinists for Calvinism. That's why when you apply its definition everywhere else in Scripture it falls apart. The only place it can make sense is in Calvinism because that's the only place it was intended to make sense. If this does not bother you, then I would honestly have a close introspection and see if YOU are preaching the right Gospel. If all you have is a flimsy anology that contradicts every usage instance elsewhere then you are not preaching Bible. You are preaching Calvinism.

And let me guess, you made up the question yourself and it coincendentally happens to be the buzz in the whole blogosphere. Ha! Monkey. You want a an original answer, give me an original question not one of your latest cookie cutter questions that you have no idea about.

Copy and paste? Show me. And then I can show you the hundreds of places your question came from.

"ERV code has a specific purpose, viz communicating between the cells."--- That's hardly a case for complexity, so try to be intellectually honest for once in your godless life.

I find it interesting how you do nothing to defend your position and to answer relevant objections. It's characteristics for atheists to have all the questions but none of the answers.

Anyways, the copy and paste you are reffering to is my EXPLANATION not my ANSWER. I already gave you my answer several times but since it seems that you have common ancestry with a brick wall I will repeat it for you again. Hopefully you will get it now.

Common Ancestry Common Ancestry Common Ancestry Common Ancestry Common Ancestry Common Ancestry Common Ancestry Common Ancestry.

ERV code has a specific purpose, viz communicating between the cells. This is Much like the communication viruses enable in the bacterial community.

Evolutionists have always blatantly underestimated the complexity they are dealing with in the genome. From their terrrible track record in the past we are justified to remain highly sceptical of anything the evolutionists choose to say about the information in the Genome.

In order for an ERV to be in the same location in differing populations via Common Descent, either many individuals in the originally infected had to be infected at the same locus or there was a survivable bottle-neck. IOW only one got infected and that one passed on the genetic material that all subsequent populations received.

And if multiple individuals got infected at the same locus/ loci then that would mean a common mechanism is at play.

Next comes meiosis with its chromosomal recombinations being the norm. So not only does the ERV have to survive that bottle-neck it has to stay in place all the while rearrangements are taking place all around it.

I think the misunderstanding comes from a basic grammatical misunderstanding.

"is come" is a unaccusative intransitive verb. Suffice to say is that it is an archaic verb form which its use stopped around the early 1900's.

Now listen, they both express the same tense, viz the present perfect tense. The only differece is the selection of the auxiliary verb (helping verb). In modern english the helping verb "has" is preffered to express this tense. But in old English, the helping verb "to be" was preffered.

Other examples:
Elsie Marley is grown so fine, she won't get up to feed the swine, but lies in bed till eight or nine.

You are going to have to do better than that.

And I being a fake or a true Christians does not make your position any more tenable. For a group of godless atheists who are so prone to logical-fallacy-pick someone to death, you sure do not mind using them.

Yes if you are going to insult Peter Ruckman, there are plenty of things that you can use of his own count. Maybe for his multiple marriages, and perversion of Scripture. (sarcasm)

Maybe you did to brush up on your reading of "101 ways to Refute Creationist." Or maybe you should retake the class, and pass it this time.

"People just won't bother too much if all you have bring is disdainfull ridicule laced with "arguments" that seem to come from Kent Hovind."

I can't help it if your position is ridiculous. Besides it goes both ways, monkey. If you can't take it don't dish it out. I've been to your blogs where the things you say are not even fit to be uttered. So don't come over here trying to act like a saint when you have no idea what a saint is. You don't even have the decency to give glory to your Creator. I never listened to one lecture by Kent Hovind, so you can stop reffering to him now. It seems like you are more in love with him then me.

Now let's be serious here. The Church has always rejected your heresy, so it is you that is rejecting the fundamental truth of his bodily ressurection.

What are you going to say next that Jesus not being God in the flesh is the foundation of the Church?

You did not simply objectively throw one part away, you forsook your previous faith as a whole.