Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Then by definition, it was a point of "almost" no return.



Edit: That smiley is supposed to be winking, not sleeping. Lousy Christmas! RUINING MY EMOTICONS!!!!

 

[Miles Teg]

So there were no bottlenecks, just "statistics" - and then you cite a potential bottleneck ~70 kya (when Toba blew).

I'm not saying the human population hasn't experienced bottleneck moments, and I never have. I'm saying that the bottleneck moments have no connection with Y-Chromosomal Adam, Mitochondrial Eve, or that Eurasian Manwhore.

How about "statistics" for other critters? If tracing their DNA shows recent ancestors then our Adam and Eve may not be unusual.

Humans are exceptional.

There are a number of other species that have gone through bottlenecks in the distant past (cheetahs, pandas, etc). However, these are all unusual cases. Keep in mind, a bottleneck is defined in comparison to a normal population. If most animals had gone through a bottleneck, we wouldn't know what bottlenecks looked like.

For another case in point, animal cousins can mate without risk of deformed babies. Human cousin couples are at risk, because humans are all already too inbred compared to normal animals.

 

[Trev]

Quote:
You have not shown any evidence of a intermediate stage for ATP synthase to work, or any evidence of any other system that may have worked prior to the existence of ATP synthase. I also have not been able to find such evidence so I stand by my statement "It is impossible for all to have evolved in stages as the immediate stages cannot work."
Once again you go to lack of evidence = impossible.

It's like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple pieces missing. The picture is by no means complete, but that doesn't mean it still isn't a picture than can be completed.

Lack of 100% proof does not mean impossible. You can't seriously debate stuff on the internet until you understand that.

Unfortunately in this case it is a jigsaw puzzle where no pieces fit nicely and no pieces are even proven to be part of the jigsaw puzzle. That is a hell of a long way from a jigsaw puzzle with a few pieces missing. When the absence of pieces or evidence is this compelling I will stand by my statement 'It is impossible for all to have evolved in stages as the immediate stages cannot work.'

From http://www.atpsynthase.info/Basics.html

The structure of this enzyme is rather complex. It is an asymmetric multisubunit protein complex of about 500 kDa. It consists of two distinct (both structurally and functionally) multisubunit portions. Hydrophobic Fo portion is embedded into the membrane and performs proton translocation, while hydrophillic F1 portion protrudes into the aqueous phase and performs ATP synthesis/hydrolysis.
During catalysis a complex formed by certain subunits rotate relative to the rest of the enzyme. This feature makes ATP synthase the smallest rotary machine ever known.

Quote:
The problem is that ATP synthase is so complex it needs information to build it and sustain it, information that comes from the DNA.
You'd have to prove that it cannot happen naturally without DNA then.

First you get on my case for not having 100% evidence, then you just make blanket statements of impossibility which you are in no position to make.

I am in a position of being able to make a blanket statement of impossibillity because we a discussing an extremely complex rotary nano-machine, so complex and made up of so many proteins, enzymes in just the right locations that it could not have happened without information supplied by a designer. DNA because it requires the energy from this machine to operate could not have supplied the information in the first instance. Functioning protein complexes of about 500 kDa just will not happen without a Maker and also encode itself into DNA at the same time so it can be replicated. Logic makes it clear this cannot happen.

Quote:
I stand by my statements that the complexity and interdependence of DNA/RNA/ATP synthase/cellular walls are such that there is only one viable option left as all others have been exhausted. The first cells were created with cellular walls, DNA, RNA, and especially ATP synthase.
No, "all others" have not been exhausted, and the first explanation hasn't even been remotely disproved, AND the first explanation is nearly 100% complete and is a working theory.

You are deluding yourself to think that gaps in science equals creationism or God. It does not.

That's God of the Gaps. It's fallacious and nonsensical. And it would be impossible to have a logical conversation with you until you understand that very very basic concept.

Your statement the first explanation is nearly 100% complete and a working theory is absolute nonsense. It provides no explanation for the origin of ATP synthase, no explanation for an energy source before ATP synthase, no explanation for the operation of DNA before ATP synthase energy, if that is a nearly 100% complete and working theory, then your definition is far different from mine. I have never used a GOD of the gaps argument or a gaps in science = creationism. Instead I have used an example of a complex interdependent system of DNA/RNA/ATP synthase that could not have happened without a designer and Creator. No counter argument has yet come close to refuting my arguments. As you have given weak evidence that cellular walls can be replaced by a rudimentary system spontaneously formed from fatty deposits, weak evidence because there is no proof supplied it can perform many of the required functions, I will leave that out of my argument reluctantly.
You have tried to counter my arguments without succeeding, I give you credit for trying, no other person has even tried.

 

[sanabas]

if that is a nearly 100% complete and working theory, then your definition is far different from mine.

Truest thing you've said all thread.

I have never used a GOD of the gaps argument or a gaps in science = creationism.

This is exactly what you're using. Your entire argument is that you have an example of irreducible complexity. When told that it's not, your rebuttal is 'tell me exactly how it evolved then, in explicit detail', when told we don't know exactly, we can make educated guesses, but that there's a gap there, your conclusion is 'There's a gap! Therefore it DIDN'T evolve. Therefore it was created. Therefore creationism is true.'

 

[Trev]

A massive void that cannot be explained is somehow reduced to a gap. If such massive voids are routinely allowed in other areas of science then any science theory would be acceptable as 'As that is a gap in our knowledge, do not worry about that' will be an explanation for disceprancies in data and theory.

 

[sophie]

Your statement the first explanation is nearly 100% complete and a working theory is absolute nonsense. It provides no explanation for the origin of ATP synthase, no explanation for an energy source before ATP synthase, no explanation for the operation of DNA before ATP synthase energy, if that is a nearly 100% complete and working theory, then your definition is far different from mine.

Think about this for a second here. You have come on here, and all you have done so far is railed on one point, one point, which, while there are several hypotheses put forward by scientists, has not been corroborated due to the fact that we simply don't know much about it yet. Now what you have failed to "poke holes in" is, well, everything else. As was said before, if we can assert, and provide evidence for nearly every other facet of evolution, from fossil records to present observation, and all you have is one iota of a very large theory that has not been worked out quite yet (but probably will be some day), then that sounds like a nearly 100% complete and working theory to me.

I have never used a GOD of the gaps argument or a gaps in science = creationism. Instead I have used an example of a complex interdependent system of
DNA/RNA/ATP synthase that could not have happened without a designer and Creator. No counter argument has yet come close to refuting my arguments.
You have tried to counter my arguments without succeeding, I give you credit for trying, no other person has even tried.

Dude, this is a God of the Gaps argument. Here's what you're doing: "x can't be proved by evolution because scientists do not yet know how it happened, therefore God did it." That is a textbook example of a God of the Gaps argument.

The reason God of the Gaps arguments are fallacious is because, while you may, no, scratch that, you aren't even disproving evolution (considering your only conclusion was essentially we don't know yet), anyways, while you may poke a hole in this particular theory, you don't posit information to show that that facet of life necessarily came from a supernatural being. In other words, you are going in with a presupposition, and that is simply not how science works.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Unfortunately in this case it is a jigsaw puzzle where no pieces fit nicely and no pieces are even proven to be part of the jigsaw puzzle.

No pieces fit nicely? You'd be in disagreement with scientists who know more about it than you.

Also, "in your opinion" would be a nice thing to say. You say this like it's fact, far from it.

'It is impossible for all to have evolved in stages as the immediate stages cannot work.'

It is foolish of you to say it is impossible when you can't prove conclusively that the intermediate stages cannot work.

I am in a position of being able to make a blanket statement of impossibillity because we a discussing an extremely complex rotary nano-machine, so complex and made up of so many proteins, enzymes in just the right locations that it could not have happened without information supplied by a designer.

Argument from complexity is a fallacy. Just because something is complex, it does not require a designer.

There are many, many layers in the atmosphere on Jupiter, and many storms which have existed for centuries, the planet is a very very complex ball of gas and ice, and yet, just because it is complex, does not mean it requires a designer.

This is all your opinion. Complex is also an opinion. How are you to say it is complex? Complex compared to what?

An atom is pretty darn complex. So much so, that we still don't fully understand what all the pieces of it do. But that doesn't mean each individual atom needed a designer.

DNA because it requires the energy from this machine to operate could not have supplied the information in the first instance. Functioning protein complexes of about 500 kDa just will not happen without a Maker

None of this necessitates a "maker". There's a lot of "information" just floating around in space. It might boggle certain human brains, but the universe is a complicated place. Just because it's hard for you to understand, that does not prove a wizard did it.


Sheesh.

and also encode itself into DNA at the same time so it can be replicated. Logic makes it clear this cannot happen.

Your opinion is clear, the underlying logic is missing from your argument.

You're simply making statements of fact which aren't factual, they're your unsupported opinion.

Your statement the first explanation is nearly 100% complete and a working theory is absolute nonsense. It provides no explanation for the origin of ATP synthase, no explanation for an energy source before ATP synthase, no explanation for the operation of DNA before ATP synthase energy, if that is a nearly 100% complete and working theory,

I was referring to the theory of evolution, which is clear on just about everything else.

That's the "near 100%" I am talking about. Don't go overboard exaggerating that I can't explain ATP synthase means the theory of evolution is unsupported.

You're argument is completely outside reason.

then your definition is far different from mine. I have never used a GOD of the gaps argument or a gaps in science = creationism. Instead I have used an example of a complex interdependent system of DNA/RNA/ATP synthase that could not have happened without a designer and Creator.

Argument from complexity is still a fallacy. Because something is complicated DOES NOT MEAN IT MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED.

There's a missing gap.

1. Something is complicated to you.
2. ???????
3. God did it.

Real, actual logic doesn't skip over step two.

No counter argument has yet come close to refuting my arguments.

You don't even have an argument. That's why there's no response.

1. Something is complicated to you.
2. ???????
3. God did it.

Is not an argument that withstands any scrutiny. That's all.

As you have given weak evidence that cellular walls can be replaced by a rudimentary system spontaneously formed from fatty deposits, weak evidence because there is no proof supplied it can perform many of the required functions, I will leave that out of my argument reluctantly.

It didn't need to perform any function besides being a permeable layer of fat surrounding an aqueous solution.

It performs that function just fine.

That's my "weak" argument, which is that it satisfied all the requirements a reasonable person looks for in a cellular membrane.

You have tried to counter my arguments without succeeding, I give you credit for trying, no other person has even tried.

You can repeat over and over again that you've been successful in your arguments, but that doesn't make it so.

I can do that too:

"I won this debate."

*shrug* It doesn't make a shred of difference to me if you THINK you've made some compelling argument here. You have not.

The only thing you've said, which isn't in dispute, and is also factual, is that there are things we don't understand about the formation of ATP synthase.

Congrats, that was never in dispute.

You make a leap that rational people do not, which is to assume since it's complicated and we don't understand it, GOD DID IT.

That's not a rational argument, and it's also not the logical conclusion. That's God of the Gaps, and yes, it is a fallacy.


Science can explain 50% of the universe, and ancient man says God did the rest.
Science can explain 75% of the universe, and medieval man says God did the rest.
Science can explain 90% of the universe, and modern man says God did the rest.

Whatever you can't explain or understand, you say God must have done it. It's silly.

You can make that argument, but no one will ever take you seriously except like-minded religious people. Fortunately, even religious people understand that it can rain without God ordering the clouds to make it so, even if some people don't understand how it rains.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

A massive void that cannot be explained is somehow reduced to a gap. If such massive voids are routinely allowed in other areas of science then any science theory would be acceptable as 'As that is a gap in our knowledge, do not worry about that' will be an explanation for disceprancies in data and theory.

Ok let's talk about the evidence that God did it. Please provide such evidence. Evidence, mind you, is not the same thing as going "I dunno, wizardry!" or even "Wow, it's just so complicated." If that's all you got, I don't mind teaching it as the alternative theory.

Creation science class 101: Course One: Chapter One: Paragraph One:​

1. I don't know
2. The truth is complicated

Course completed.​

I don't have any disagreement with this being taught as the alternative to science. I think it would actually encourage people to take real science more seriously, since comparing it to the scientific merit of "wizardry" makes the differences very very clear.

 

[Trev]

Think about this for a second here. You have come on here, and all you have done so far is railed on one point, one point, which, while there are several hypotheses put forward by scientists, has not been corroborated due to the fact that we simply don't know much about it yet.

This one point is absolutely critical to understanding the beginning of life. Nothing can be more critical than all the essentials of life having no explanation, DNA/RNA/ATP synthase and their interdependence.

The reason God of the Gaps arguments are fallacious is because, while you may, no, scratch that, you aren't even disproving evolution (considering your only conclusion was essentially we don't know yet), anyways, while you may poke a hole in this particular theory, you don't posit information to show that that facet of life necessarily came from a supernatural being. In other words, you are going in with a presupposition, and that is simply not how science works.

Your notion that more information will disprove the need for a creator for DNA/RNA/ATP synthase is not a presupposition. In any other field of science sustained complexity only comes from inputs of energy and organization into a system. So my explanation follows the general scientific philosophy of the need for energy and organization to produce a complex system (Laws of Thermodynamics). I posit that intelligence and information is required to supply that energy and organization and that intelligence and information came from a Creator, Man not being there at the time to do that. Science does not provide any way for an incredibly complex structure that is DNA/RNA/ATP synthase to just happen.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

(Laws of Thermodynamics)

You keep using this term. I do not think it means what you think it means.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE&feature=related

 

[Trev]

There are many, many layers in the atmosphere on Jupiter, and many storms which have existed for centuries, the planet is a very very complex ball of gas and ice, and yet, just because it is complex, does not mean it requires a designer.

Jupiter, which has never been reproduced or replicated is a different kettle of fish to ATP synthase which is replicated trillions of times. The two are not comparable.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Jupiter, which has never been reproduced or replicated is a different kettle of fish to ATP synthase which is replicated trillions of times. The two are not comparable.

Inconceivable!

You cannot invoke the laws of thermodynamics in an argument which doesn't talk about thermodynamics.

Lack of evidence does not prove a wizard did it.

Do you deny that Jupiter is a complex thing? It's infinitely more complex than ATP synthase. Obviously a wizard did that too, it didn't just accumulate gas because of gravity.

Inconceivable! A wizard did it because it is complicated.

No? Some complex things don't require magic, even if we don't fully understand how they work?

Cool.

 

[Trev]

Do you deny that Jupiter is a complex thing?

Yes I do. Jupiter is just a ball of gas, mostly hydrogen and hydrogen compounds with traces of other elements compressed together by gravity without much structure in its composition. The intricate structure of ATP synthase and the component proteins etc is of a much greater magnitude.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yes I do. Jupiter is just a ball of gas, mostly hydrogen and hydrogen compounds with traces of other elements compressed together by gravity without much structure in its composition. The intricate structure of ATP synthase and the component proteins etc is of a much greater magnitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter

Gosh, it seems complex to me. Gravity couldn't possibly explain it all!

We don't know exactly for certain what's at the core of Jupiter, therefore Jupiter doesn't exist.

If it does exist, a wizard made it because it is complicated.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not a Christian nor am I YEC creationist, but I've seen several people get real obnoxious and dismiss everything and anything the Bible and related sources claim based on things the Bible supposedly got wrong. Thats a double standard... Now you're telling me the Bible must get everything right because someone else said it has no errors.

What the Bible says is irrelevant if it doesn't lead to data which can be tried to be explained through a model which can be tested.

Name one thing the Bible provides which we can test.

A massive void that cannot be explained is somehow reduced to a gap. If such massive voids are routinely allowed in other areas of science then any science theory would be acceptable as 'As that is a gap in our knowledge, do not worry about that' will be an explanation for disceprancies in data and theory.

So, are you as skeptical towards Gravity. Do you look at a plane and think, "that can't fly", do you regard yourself and go "I'm not supposed to stay on the ground" because the stars at the edge of our galaxy do not conform to the Theory of Gravity, barring the introduction of a HUGE unknown called Dark Matter? Notice how I use the terms "Gravity" and "Theory of Gravity".

"Massive void"

Yes I do. Jupiter is just a ball of gas, mostly hydrogen and hydrogen compounds with traces of other elements compressed together by gravity without much structure in its composition.

Hey, you invoke Gravity.

But the Theory of Gravity has this massive void! How can you apply two different standards to Gravity and Evolution?


edit: Here, prepare to start floating about

According to observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric, dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, while the ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% (the remainder is attributed to dark energy).[2][3] From these figures, dark matter constitutes 80% of the matter in the universe, while ordinary matter makes up only 20%.

80%!

80 mindnumbingly bloody effing percent!

That's a massive void. And still we get a spaceship to rendevouz with an asteroid and launch a probe a zillion miles away. Explain to me how the Theory of Gravity pulls this off when it doesn't meet your requirements by a landslide of how massive-voidless a scientific theory should be.

Surely a divine intervention guided that spacecraft towards the asteroid wouldn't you agree?

 

[Trev]

According to observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric, dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, while the ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% (the remainder is attributed to dark energy).[2][3] From these figures, dark matter constitutes 80% of the matter in the universe, while ordinary matter makes up only 20%.

80%!

80 mindnumbingly bloody effing percent!

That's a massive void. And still we get a spaceship to rendevouz with an asteroid and launch a probe a zillion miles away. Explain to me how the Theory of Gravity pulls this off when it doesn't meet your requirements by a landslide of how massive-voidless a scientific theory should be.

Surely a divine intervention guided that spacecraft towards the asteroid wouldn't you agree?

There is no dark matter postulated for our solar system and the spacecraft calculations work great, no void in the theory there.
There is however major problems with galatical and super galatical structures, and the application of the theory of gravity to these massive structures in the context of the big bang theory. They propose dark matter to overcome many of these issues and dark energy to overcome issues with the expansion of the universe. I believe the universe is generally younger, and the galatical structures are as they were created by God. In that context dark matter and dark energy are not needed to explain the structure of the universe and therefore a void in the theory of gravity is no longer there.
But there are issues with the massive distances of the universe and time that starlight has travelled for which are not easily explained, there are theories that attempt to explain it, but they are not proven.
So the invention of dark matter and dark energy to solve big bang problems I find unsatisfying and contrived, likewise solutions proposed for starlight in a created universe are also contrived. I will not say more on gravity and dark matter and dark energy, I think theories there are still very much in a state of flux on both sides of the fence, evolutionists and creationists. Certainly the invention of dark energy is a relatively recent theory and explanation for anomalous acceleration in relation to the pioneer spacecraft are still in their early stages. Our understanding of the cosmos beyond our solar system still seems to be flawed and limited.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Cripes all mighty.

I believe the universe is generally younger, and the galatical structures are as they were created by God. In that context dark matter and dark energy are not needed to explain the structure of the universe and therefore a void in the theory of gravity is no longer there.

So "God did it". Very scientific.

This way of thinking also led people to find ways of explaining thunder and lightning. They figured,, there's a gap in our understanding, so we introduce Thor and it's explained.

By your method of reasoning Thor is as true then as your introduction of God is now.

So the invention of dark matter and dark energy to solve big bang problems I find unsatisfying and contrived, likewise solutions proposed for starlight in a created universe are also contrived.

To solve Gravity problems as well.

Or did God make Gravity only work a certain way inside our Galaxy (not just our solar system) and figured other rules for outside of them.

edit: Oh and another thing about your erroneous statement: "the invention of dark matter and dark energy to solve big bang problems". This isn't true. Dark Matter is used as a term to specify an unknown.

You see, scientist don't make all kinds of fantastic creatures up to explain away flaws in Theories. They are honest in saying: this is a factor that is yet unknown. Ask a scientist what Dark Matter is, and he'll say: "I don't know". Instead of "Uhm .... God!"

 

[Trev]

I am not inventing God. I am not stating things that God himself has not said first. It is not wrong to take a Book, make an assessment of its accuracy and when it is found to be true in facts that can be tested, then to believe that parts I cannot test are also true. Having done that, I will then use it to guide my beliefs, both in the religious sphere and in the natural realm. I have not found the facts of the natural realm to prove the Bible wrong, so I will continue to believe it is the true Word of God and use it guide my beliefs in all aspects of the world. A global flood best explains the fossils and beds of sedimentary rock and coal deposits, not a billion years or four. God's claim to have created life makes the most sense, because it explains the complexity of life, DNA/RNA/ATP synthase best.
Thor has not to my knowledge written any writings that explain the world as we see it adequately, so it makes no sense to belief in him and what is taught about him.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am not inventing God. I am not stating things that God himself has not said first. It is not wrong to take a Book, make an assessment of its accuracy and when it is found to be true in facts that can be tested, then to believe that parts I cannot test are also true.

Name something that was tested and found true with regard to the Creation.

Having done that, I will then use it to guide my beliefs, both in the religious sphere and in the natural realm. I have not found the facts of the natural realm to prove the Bible wrong, so I will continue to believe it is the true Word of God and use it guide my beliefs in all aspects of the world. A global flood best explains the fossils and beds of sedimentary rock and coal deposits, not a billion years or four. God's claim to have created life makes the most sense, because it explains the complexity of life, DNA/RNA/ATP synthase best.

A global flood does not best explain. A global flood is a myth. And "God's claim" as you channel him doesn't explain anything. All it does is state, without method.

And you still are stuck with trying to answer the question from Noah's ark to the complexity of life as we see today, which would require an ridiculously accelerated evolution. But those gaps you brush aside. Probably claiming God did it somehow.

Thor has not to my knowledge written any writings that explain the world as we see it adequately, so it makes no sense to belief in him and what is taught about him.

He explained lightning.

 

[sanabas]

But those gaps you brush aside. Probably claiming God did it somehow.

Genesis explicitly said there was a void, and god filled it. So that clearly applies to any & all voids you happen to find. There's no need to research anything. Which incidentally, is the one thing that really gets to me, the way these people revel in not knowing stuff, are proud of their ignorance. When faced with an apparently unexplainable phenomenon, they don't try to explain it, they actively object to people trying to explain it, they call it proof that god was involved in that particular thing.

I truly don't know how you cope with that complete lack of curiosity about how things work, I don't know where you think the world would be now, or where it would head, if everyone shared that desire to be dull. I'd like to know what happens when something you previously explained away as a god proving void gets conclusively explained not just to normal people, but to the point creationists can't even object, without needing god. Lightning's agood example. Do you admit you were wrong? Do you get excited because filling part of one gap always means two new gaps on either side, which means you've now got double the proof for god?

I'm curious to hear what the one bit of goobledygook that is irrefutable evidence for a global flood, for why all of modern geology is wrong, for why the Grand Canyon didn't really take that long to form, why Everest didn't really take that long to rise. I wonder if it'll be as convincing and void-causing as ATP?