My Lunar Challenge

AV1611VET · Sep 16, 2009

Aggie said:
The scientific method also demands that we continue to test any conclusion drawn by science, and if a conclusion is incorrect, that’s increasingly likely to be discovered the more tests are performed.

That's nice --- but you have to have something to test in the first place; and the Creation Week left no evidence behind.

God isn't messy.

Aggie said:
You do? I thought you were a YEC.

Nope --- qv please: 1 .

Also qv: 1 .

And here is my thread where I attempted a trial run as a YEC: 1 .

Aggie · Sep 16, 2009

I know you’ve explained this to other people before, but I’d still like it if you could answer my questions about it.

Suppose that you’re a virologist searching for new treatments for HIV, and the most promising line of research about this is based on the assumption that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. (As is often the case for HIV research, according to the paper about this that I linked to.) Does your “embedded age” view also include embedded genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees, which precisely mimic what scientists would predict based on the theory that humans and chimps are related? So you would base your research on the predictions made by this theory, even though you don’t believe that this relationship actually exists?

Or am I misunderstanding your views about this?

AV1611VET · Sep 16, 2009

Aggie said:
Does your “embedded age” view also include embedded genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees, which precisely mimic what scientists would predict based on the theory that humans and chimps are related?

In my opinion --- yes.

Aggie said:
Or am I misunderstanding your views about this?

As I understand it, human DNA is 98% that of chimp DNA --- (or is it the other way around).

In any case, that 2% represents a barrier that nature cannot cross.

If apes existed in Genesis 1, then look at it this way.

God could have placed two fingers on a beach, pulled His hand up, and up came an ape under one finger, and Adam under another finger (this isn't the way it happened, but I hope you see what I'm saying).

The ape could contain 98% of the same DNA that Adam contains; this does not mean Adam came from the ape.

Both were created separate from the other, and both on the same day.

Sophophile · Sep 16, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Show me evidence that the moon was created ex nihilo.

I will take your word on it if you say that none exists.

I think there is evidence the moon was created ex nihilo.

1. The moon is made of matter, which is contingent i.e. it is logically possible for it not to exist.

2. There is evidence that the moon has not existed eternally (from astronomy, geophysics, observations of craters, sun's lifecycle etc etc)

3. Therefore, it is very probable the moon once did not exist.

4. If the process by which the moon went from non-existence to existence was a creative process, then we have established creation ex nihilo of the moon.

QED.

S.

Aggie · Sep 16, 2009

AV1611VET said:
As I understand it, human DNA is 98% that of chimp DNA --- (or is it the other way around).

In any case, that 2% represents a barrier that nature cannot cross.

If apes existed in Genesis 1, then look at it this way.

God could have placed two fingers on a beach, pulled His hand up, and up came an ape under one finger, and Adam under another finger (this isn't the way it happened, but I hope you see what I'm saying).

The ape could contain 98% of the same DNA that Adam contains; this does not mean Adam came from the ape.

Both were created separate from the other, and both on the same day.

This isnt just a matter of percentage. I dont know a huge amount about virology, but the paper I linked to seems to be saying that this HIV research is based on the assumption that genetic differences between humans and chimps will be in all of the exact places which would have been caused by natural selection, if humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

Heres another thread about something similar, also related to virology, but an entirely different type of similarity. The relevant part is the two posts from WinAce. Basically, the distribution of ERVs in humans and other apes precisely mimics the pattern of ancestry thats been concluded from fossil and morphological evidence, and the odds of even just two identical ERVs arising independently are next to nothing. You probably ought to read this thread, if you havent already. If theres any line of evidence that can be considered a smoking gun for evolution, this is it.

Going with the embedded age idea, it seems like what youd have to believe is that God created all aspects of the world with the specific intention of making them look as though evolution had happened, so much so that people who research ERVs would be able to use the theory of evolution predict where an ERV will be located before its actually discovered, and paleontologists such as William Beebe would be able to use this theory to predict what a fossil would look like decades before its discovered. Is that what you believe; that evolution is a huge illusion Gods created for us?

Skaloop · Sep 16, 2009

Sophophile said:
I think there is evidence the moon was created ex nihilo.

1. The moon is made of matter, which is contingent i.e. it is logically possible for it not to exist.

2. There is evidence that the moon has not existed eternally (from astronomy, geophysics, observations of craters, sun's lifecycle etc etc)

3. Therefore, it is very probable the moon once did not exist.

4. If the process by which the moon went from non-existence to existence was a creative process, then we have established creation ex nihilo of the moon.

QED.

S.

The bolded If goes contrary to the spirit of QED.

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes, but it's not only probable, it's practically certain.
4) Yes, but you still have to demonstrate that it was a creative process to establish creation ex nihilo, therefore you have not demonstrated that which was to be demonstrated (that the moon was created ex nihilo).

So either drop the If or drop the QED.

Sophophile · Sep 16, 2009

Skaloop said:
Sophophile said:

1. The moon is made of matter, which is contingent i.e. it is logically possible for it not to exist.
2. There is evidence that the moon has not existed eternally (from astronomy, geophysics, observations of craters, sun's lifecycle etc etc)
3. Therefore, it is very probable the moon once did not exist.
4. If the process by which the moon went from non-existence to existence was a creative process, then we have established creation ex nihilo of the moon.

QED.

Click to expand...

The bolded If goes contrary to the spirit of QED.

... you still have to demonstrate that it was a creative process to establish creation ex nihilo, therefore you have not demonstrated that which was to be demonstrated (that the moon was created ex nihilo).

So either drop the If or drop the QED.

Hi Skaloop

That which was to be demonstrated was:

AV1611VET said:
Show me evidence that the moon was created ex nihilo.

Not that the moon was created ex nihilo, but that there is evidence that the moon was created ex nihilo.

Within the framework of my points 1-4, point 2 gives the evidence.

Thus, QED.

S.

AV1611VET · Sep 17, 2009

Aggie said:
Is that what you believe; that evolution is a huge illusion God’s created for us?

No --- the illusion comes from embracing the theory of evolution.

Consider this scenario --- (and keep in mind, I don't really know what I'm talking about here with ERVs):

Say a toy manufacturer makes two toys: toy apes and toy people.

Both (apes and people) come from the same materials, but the apes have 2% material unique to them.

Let's say the apes are 98% plastic and 2% metal, and the people are 100% plastic.

Same company made them both, but from different molds.

Now --- make an ape and make a person.

Put them both outside overnight.

Check on them in the morning.

What do you see?

Both are covered with dew --- (ERVs).

Now, I realize that the "dew" on the plastic ape wouldn't retrofit itself to the ape, and the "dew" on the plastic person wouldn't retrofit itself to the person, like an ERV would, so that one looks like dew, and the other looks like rain; but hopefully you get the idea.

AV1611VET · Sep 17, 2009

Sophophile said:
I think there is evidence the moon was created ex nihilo.

1. The moon is made of matter, which is contingent i.e. it is logically possible for it not to exist.

2. There is evidence that the moon has not existed eternally (from astronomy, geophysics, observations of craters, sun's lifecycle etc etc)

3. Therefore, it is very probable the moon once did not exist.

4. If the process by which the moon went from non-existence to existence was a creative process, then we have established creation ex nihilo of the moon.

QED.

S.

I think this is where it breaks down.

If the moon is made of matter, and there was a time when the moon did not exist, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics* predicates that the energy that will eventually become the moon does exist somewhere.

Either that, or the moon-to-be is embedded in another object somewhere, waiting to either be ejected into orbit around the earth or captured by the earth's gravity.

Creatio ex nihilo however predicates that not even the energy was present, but, at the right time, came into existence (in violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics)* for the sole purpose of creating the moon.

* Note: if '1st Law of Thermodynamics' is wrong, simply exchange it with 'Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy'.

Alunyel · Sep 17, 2009

AV1611VET said:
No --- the illusion comes from embracing the theory of evolution.

Consider this scenario --- (and keep in mind, I don't really know what I'm talking about here with ERVs):

Say a toy manufacturer makes two toys: toy apes and toy people.

Both (apes and people) come from the same materials, but the apes have 2% material unique to them.

Let's say the apes are 98% plastic and 2% metal, and the people are 100% plastic.

Same company made them both, but from different molds.

Now --- make an ape and make a person.

Put them both outside overnight.

Check on them in the morning.

What do you see?

Both are covered with dew --- (ERVs).

Now, I realize that the "dew" on the plastic ape wouldn't retrofit itself to the ape, and the "dew" on the plastic person wouldn't retrofit itself to the person, like an ERV would, so that one looks like dew, and the other looks like rain; but hopefully you get the idea.

The thing is with the ERV markers, is that they are in exactly the same place in almost identical genomes.

ERVs are viruses that choose a random part of the host's DNA and intergrate their own DNA into the host's DNA. Their DNA permanently becomes part of the host's genome. The markers will then be passed down through the generations, meaning say if someone 200 years ago had an ERV marker, their offspring would have it in exactly the same place, as would their offspring, and so on.

The area it intergrates itself is always random.

So if we find multiple ERV markers in chimp genomes that are in exactly the same places as ERV markers in our own genomes, what does that strongly suggest?

AV1611VET · Sep 17, 2009

Alunyel said:
So if we find multiple ERV markers in chimp genomes that are in exactly the same places as ERV markers in our own genomes, what does that strongly suggest?

That ERVs prefer certain places to others?

If you flew over a neighborhood in a helicopter, looking down at houses that say, had no roofs on them; where would you expect to see most of the beds?

In the bedroom --- right?

Some beds would be against the north wall, some against the south wall, etc. --- but basically, all in the bedroom.

Aggie · Sep 17, 2009

AV, you need to read WinAces essay. He addressed this point specifically in it.

WinAce said:
Creationist Ashby Camp, writing at TrueOrigins, quoted a scientific article referring to "insertion hotspots" that were the target of viral integration much more often than other spots in the genome. Although this is superficially a valid criticism to be hurled at the ERV argument, it quickly fails.

The very "hottest" spot Camp could dig up in the scientific literature was one that was 280 times more likely to be involved in a viral integration than we could expect from chance alone. It could be pointed out that this was a virus that doesn't exist in nature, but was specifically designed to facilitate gene therapy by targeting a specific part of the genome and replacing a crippled gene with a functional copy.

But let's ignore that for now, and assume Camp did not misrepresent relevant research. Just how large is this in the big picture? The human genome is 3 billion or so nucleotides long (Source). The chance, then, of randomly inserting into the same section of the genome is 1 in 3 billion.

Now let's assume there are hot spots an unprecedented 1,000 times more likely to be attacked by a virus than the unique, genetically engineered one Mr. Camp was able to dig up. Divide 3 billion by 280,000, and you find the chance of an independent insertion is one in around 10714; this is an unlikely enough figure to be negligible, and it was derived from estimates orders of magnitude more liberal than the data would allow!

Additionally, this doesn't address any of the other factors involved. It doesn't explain why the same viral fingerprint would be left behind, how it would affect the one germ line cell out of millions that advances to zygote status, how that single individual would enjoy reproductive success sufficient to establish his ERVs in the population, etc.

For the reasons listed above, it's astronomically improbable. Not only would the same exact retroviral insertion have to occur independently at the same exact locus of a uniquely lucky sperm or egg cell that survived to adulthood and achieved enough success to establish the insertion in their respective populations, but this impossible set of coincidences would have to occur for 3, 4, even a dozen species at the same time, and for every single ERV shared between them to boot!

Is this a problem for your beliefs? I would assume that if you believe in embedded age, that would also include everything else being embedded alsofossils being embedded in the ground, whose anatomy can be predicted based on what the theory of evolution tells us from living animals; ERVs embedded in genomes, whose patterns can be predicted based on what evolution tells us from fossils, and so on. Isnt that just a logical extension of what you believe already?

AV1611VET · Sep 17, 2009

Aggie said:
Is this a problem for your beliefs?

Not at all.

If the human genome has 3 billion nucelotides (I can't believe I'm having this discussion. I have no idea what I'm saying here.)

Anyway, if the human genome has 3 billion nucleotides, and an ERV targets the same one each time, then that tells me that ERVs have "taste".

And I don't mean that flippantly --- I'm just saying that they prefer one single nucelotide to the other 2,999,999,999.

Aggie said:
I would assume that if you believe in “embedded age”, that would also include everything else being embedded also—fossils being embedded in the ground...

Nope --- that's called Omphalism.

Aggie said:
... whose anatomy can be predicted based on what the theory of evolution tells us from living animals; ERVs embedded in genomes, whose patterns can be predicted based on what evolution tells us from fossils, and so on. Isn’t that just a logical extension of what you believe already?

Here's what I believe:

I believe in what I call a modified punctuated equilibrium --- for lack of a better term.

In other words, let's say a satyr laid four eggs.

From those four eggs came:

another satyr
T. Rex
behemoth
the gila monster

I'm making these up of course, but you get the picture of what I'm saying, I hope.

This would explain how the earth would have quickly been repopulated after the Flood, as well as account for the diversity of life.

To support that with Scripture, note how God handled genetics with Laban's flock:

Genesis 30:39 said:
And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

Alunyel · Sep 17, 2009

ERVs don't select the same space, though.

The point they choose is always random.

A nucleotide is adenine, thymine, cytosine... and the other one. It's what the base pairs are made up of. The DNA doesn't choose a random nucleotide to insert itself between, that wouldn't work. It chooses two random base pairs to insert itself between, so the host copies the ERV's genome, when it copies its own DNA.

For an ERV marker to appear in the same spot, in two different genomes can only mean that they share a common ancestor, because the only way for that to happen, is if the common ancestor got the ERV, and then passed the markers down through the generations. All descendants of the original host will have the markers.

Choose 10 numbers between 1 and ~3 billion.

Now get a stranger to do the same.

The chances of you picking even one number the same is pretty much the same chance of an ERV selecting the same spot in two sepeare genomes.

The chance of you picking all 10 numbers the same, in the same order, is the chance 10 ERVs stand of intergrating themselves into the same spot in two almost identical genomes.

AV1611VET · Sep 17, 2009

Alunyel said:
ERVs don't select the same space, though.

The point they choose is always random.

A nucleotide is adenine, thymine, cytosine... and the other one. It's what the base pairs are made up of. The DNA doesn't choose a random nucleotide to insert itself between, that wouldn't work. It chooses a two random base pairs to insert itself between.

Oh, well.

This subject is way over my head, anyway.

I always though nucleotides was something you should avoid when swimming.

Sophophile · Sep 17, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I think this is where it breaks down.

(viz. "the moon is made of matter which is contingent i.e. it is logically possible for it not to exist.)

If the moon is made of matter, and there was a time when the moon did not exist, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics* predicates that the energy that will eventually become the moon does exist somewhere.

Either that, or the moon-to-be is embedded in another object somewhere, waiting to either be ejected into orbit around the earth or captured by the earth's gravity.

Creatio ex nihilo however predicates that not even the energy was present, but, at the right time, came into existence (in violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics)* for the sole purpose of creating the moon.

Hello AV1611VET

So, you are arguing that the laws of physics absolutely forbid creatio ex nihilo of the moon? This is a non-starter -- unless you can reasonably prove that the laws of physics as currently understood have always held throughout eternity.

I also do not accept that the concept of ex nihilo creation of the moon necessarily requires that matter/energy be brought into existence for the sole purpose of creating the moon. If the entire solar system, say, including the moon, was brought into existence ex nihilo, would that not count as ex nihilo creation of the moon? If not, why not?

Cheers
S.

Aggie · Sep 17, 2009

So if you dont believe in Omphalism, AV, why do you think its possible to use the theory of evolution to predict how ERVs will be distributed?

As Alunyel explained, if two animals share the exact same viral fingerprint at the exact location in their genomes, theres no plausible explanation for this except that they both inherited it from their common ancestor. So for example, if we find the same ERV at the same location in both gorillas and chimpanzees, we can know from this that they inherited it from their common ancestor, which the theory of evolution says was also an ancestor of humans. Since humans would have also inherited this ERV from the same ancestor, evolution tells us that if we look for this ERV in the human genome, well not only find the same ERV, but well find it in the exact same location as where it exists in gorillas and chimps. And we always do.

On the other hand, if an ERV is found in gorillas but not in chimps, that means it was inserted into the gorilla lineage after it split off from the line that led to chimps and humans, meaning that humans wont have the ERV either. These types of predictions are always confirmed also. As mentioned in WinAces essay, there are around a dozen different ERVs that all fit this pattern, whose distribution can be predicted in advance by the theory of evolution, and then confirmed experimentally.

As I mentioned earlier, the way to test how accurately any theory describes reality is based on how accurate its predictions are. This is the sort of prediction that evolution makes. Judging by the accuracy of its predictions, the theory of evolution is pretty accurate, isnt it?

azmurath · Sep 17, 2009

So basically you would rather believe in chimeras (not satyrs) that repopulated the earth after the flood than genetic differentiation, drift and mutation, all of which are EVIDENCED FACTS.

Good job AV. You don't help your side at all.

Split Rock · Sep 17, 2009

AV1611VET said:
In other words, let's say a satyr laid four eggs.

From those four eggs came:

another satyr

T. Rex

behemoth

the gila monster

I'm making these up of course, but you get the picture of what I'm saying, I hope.

Please tell me this was an attempt at humor.

dewaddict84 · Sep 17, 2009

In other words, let's say a satyr laid four eggs.

From those four eggs came:

another satyr

T. Rex

behemoth

the gila monster

I'm making these up of course, but you get the picture of what I'm saying, I hope.

No AV. I'm really REALLY not getting the picture. I'm just letting you know that was a poor analogy. At least I'm hoping that's a bad analogy.

My Lunar Challenge

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Soldier of Knowledge

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Soldier of Knowledge

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Alunyel

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Soldier of Knowledge

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Alunyel

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Soldier of Knowledge

Well-Known Member

Conflation of Blathers

meh

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency