Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Fanatic Noob]

Is this topic a joke? 33 page? 2nd part? Means 1000 pages before? I am avidly Atheist/secular, there no god, jahve or allah, and Jesus Christ was a rock star of his age. What A creationist then? It is some kind of humbug theory, I will first more believe in aliens, or in matrix that we all live in created computer environment done by some genius.

 

[Trev]

What if life had other kinds of energy at one point? What if it can be proven that ATP can be created naturally through an abiogenesis process?

* How can you declare something impossible without exploring other alternatives?

My searches have shown no evidence of an alternative so the statement remains

"Life without ATP synthase is impossible because it is the energy for life."

No, I only responded to 3 out of 4 of your assertions which are all proven false in a single stroke of a simple GOOGLE search.

* If I were able to show ATP forming spontaneously from other, smaller molecules, would you finally admit you were wrong?

You have not proven 3 of 4 assertions false. You have spoken of rudimentary 'cellular walls, but provided no evidence those walls can provide the needed protection for the DNA, RNA, and ATP synthase, or contain/retain/allow necessary energy inside those walls for the functioning of a primitive cell.

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

You have not explored any alternatives, you have not proven that it is impossible conclusively, and in fact I can show you evidence which contradicts your statement. And you immediately leap back to "A wizard did it" which is not science.

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."
The problem is that ATP synthase is so complex it needs information to build it and sustain it, information that comes from the DNA. As there is 100 enzymes/ machines needed to make ATP synthase the amount of DNA code needed to build ATP synthase is substantial, 100 segments of code all activated in the correct sequence, 1 segment for each enzyme/machine. So it is impossible to produce ATP synthase without the DNA, the DNA needs the ATP synthase energy to operate. No life with its own ability to reproduce is known to exist or have existed without these essentials.
The difficulties of showing how a cell can arise with ATP synthase which is the essential energy for a cell, how it can have functioning DNA prior to ATP synthase, which contains the essential information for cell building and operation and how a satisfactory cell wall can be constructed without the energy of ATP synthase and organization of DNA are insurmountable. This is why scientists only propose ideas of how it may have happened, ideas which quickly fall apart under close scrutiny by critical thinkers.
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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I do have a question for evolutionists. Where did all the info come from? If we evolved simple life forms then there surely must be millions of mutations that have added the info to our genome. We are talking about specified information that has to arise, since just simple copying mistakes will not work since they are random and do not give the specified order that we see in our genome.

What specified order? Our Genome is full of junk DNA.

 

[Fanatic Noob]

Read Erich Von Däniken. That means that Aliens created us, because there no way life would happen without their help. But who created Aliens then? Phew, I have no time for such nonsense.

Moderator Action: Then don't post.

 

[useless]

It's telling that when asked for scientific evidence, you quote a poem.

 

[sanabas]

@sanabas. How the earth formed is vital for evolution since so far it is the only source of life in this universe. iF ther is no satisfactory naturalistic method for earth forming, then ther is no way life here could have evolved in the first place.

You're a known moron,

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

and equally known to simply ignore questions even when you specifically start a thread for the purpose of having them asked. ( http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=215749 and http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=305661 both have questions I'm still waiting to have answered) So really, I should just ignore your post. But it's specifically addressed to me, I think trying to educate people is a good thing, others might be reading, and they might be willing to think about this stuff, so I will answer. Maybe it'll even inspire you to answer some of my questions from your thread.

How the earth formed has nothing at all to do with evolution. All we need to know is that it's here. Which it obviously is. Doesn't matter how it formed, whether by a 'satisfactorally naturalistic method' (and I suspect satisfactory means definitely not naturalistic) or whether the Magratheans built it, or something else. Have things that self-replicate on a planet, have variability in that self-replicating population, and evolution happens. There's countless examples of things evolving under thoe conditions where the initial conditions were man made, or the selection is done artificially. It's still cumulative selection, it still results in the population evolving.

It is relevant to creationism, because it might help with being able to argue 'evolution does happen, but only because god set it up that way.' Exactly the same deal for abiogenesis. It's separate to evolutionary theory, it's interesting in its own right, and it is relevant to creationism.

I do have a question for evolutionists. Where did all the info come from? If we evolved simple life forms then there surely must be millions of mutations that have added the info to our genome. We are talking about specified information that has to arise, since just simple copying mistakes will not work since they are random and do not give the specified order that we see in our genome. Or better yet, show proof of ho w the first life even formed out of dumb chemicals.

As mentioned, abiogenesis is a separate issue. And the answer is 'we have some guesses, but we don't know.' Even if we had an example in the lab of it happening, the answer to whether that's how 'life' first appeared on the planet would still be 'we don't know'. Same way I can show a chimpanzee in the zoo is my very distant relative, as are you. But I can't prove that you're my 137th cousin, 10 times removed. My inability to construct a family tree to ascertain that level of detail doesn't prove we're not related. We can figure out we're related by other methods. In my case because of scientific evidence, you can figure it out because we're both direct descendants of Adam & Eve, both direct descendants of Noah, and therefore some sort of cousin. In the same way, inability to say 'this is exactly how life first arose' doesn't prove that it was created by someone else.

As for info, first you'd need to give me a workable definition of info, otherwise your question is meaningless. I also suggest you look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_results_challenge_creationism and explain to me why this is not an example of information (however you end up defining it) being added.

It would also help if you understood one key fact: Evolution, natural selection, cumulative selection, THESE THINGS ARE NOT RANDOM. I posted it a few pages ago, that you can look around, you can see how awesome the existance of humans, earthworms, all sorts of stuff is, and tell yourself 'there's no possible way this all evolved by chance'. And you'd be absolutely, 100% correct. It didn't all evolve by chance. Because evolution is not random. Not understanding this, or deliberately misrepresenting it, is the key to most creationist dribble. So why not learn it, and actually make some cogent arguments?



I'm seriously tempted to take up ATPG's challenge, and see how convincing, how internally consistent, and how compatible with evidence I can be as a pretend creationist. I reckon I could actually do a decent job of it, though I might end up inventing my own religion.

 

[Evil_Abe]

Why on earth would God create an aged planet and a starfield that appears to be billions of years old? This seems both deceptive and a complete waste of time.

Sorry for just dropping out of the conversation. I had to actually do some work while I was at work. God would create an aged planet and universe because he wanted to. According to Genesis he also created Adam and Eve and the animals as already adults, why could or would he not do this for the universe? As for the starlight I can only assume God created it already in transit, but beyond that, I don't know.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If you're going to believe in the Russel Hypothesis, how can you possibly make any claim about anything about the past?
How do you know the world isn't two minutes old?

 

[sanabas]

Sorry for just dropping out of the conversation. I had to actually do some work while I was at work. God would create an aged planet and universe because he wanted to. According to Genesis he also created Adam and Eve and the animals as already adults, why could or would he not do this for the universe? As for the starlight I can only assume God created it already in transit, but beyond that, I don't know.

He could. But if you're going to believe that, how do you avoid Last Thursdayism? At what point do you stop believing evidence, and instead substitute it with 'that's not evidence, that's just how god created it to look'? Seems to me like a non-trivial problem if you want to research anything new, you'll never ever be able to trust the evidence you find.

And of course, most of the vocal creationists don't accept that idea either, that god created an old planet, an old universe. They're convinced it was created brand new, and that the evidence supports that, and therefore it's scientific, and you can believe any additional evidence you find.

 

[Gustave5436]

@sanabas. How the earth formed is vital for evolution since so far it is the only source of life in this universe. iF ther is no satisfactory naturalistic method for earth forming, then ther is no way life here could have evolved in the first place.

You're right. Since there's no satisfactory explanation for the Earth's existence, then the Earth doesn't exist, and evolution is wrong by default because there isn't any extant life to evolve.

Anthropic principle: the fact that we are here implies that the universe must be capable of supporting intelligent life. You can't posit the nonexistence of Earth, because the very fact that you are able to posit its nonexistence proves that it's there.

Sorry for just dropping out of the conversation. I had to actually do some work while I was at work. God would create an aged planet and universe because he wanted to. According to Genesis he also created Adam and Eve and the animals as already adults, why could or would he not do this for the universe? As for the starlight I can only assume God created it already in transit, but beyond that, I don't know.

Suppose the universe has not been created yet. Perhaps it will be created tomorrow, but with every single bit of evidence suggesting that it is 13.7 billion years old. From our relative perspective, the universe is, in fact, billions of years old. While we don't even exist yet in God's reference frame, for all intents and purposes our universe functions as if it is aged; therefore it is, in reality, aged.

"God created the universe last week, but made everything look like it was billions of years old" is a meaningless distinction; functionally the universe in that case is, in fact, billions of years old regardless of God's perceptions (since he is causally disconnected from us anyway).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Is this topic a joke? 33 page? 2nd part? Means 1000 pages before? I am avidly Atheist/secular, there no god, jahve or allah, and Jesus Christ was a rock star of his age. What A creationist then? It is some kind of humbug theory, I will first more believe in aliens, or in matrix that we all live in created computer environment done by some genius.

Welcome to OT where we discuss and discuss and discuss for hundreds and hundreds of posts what we each know can be explained easily in a sentence. But we try to have good time while doing so.

 

[PeteAtoms]

If god created anything, I'd like to see someone explain how.

I get tired of the watchmaker analogy. Watchmakers obviously have a method, plans, resources, blueprints and material to make/design watches. The conservation of matter/energy is not broken with a watchmaker (among other physical laws that god breaks). In fact, the laws of time and physics are a prerequisite for watches. Creating a watch is nothing compared to the creation of time itself (and the comparison/analogy breaks apart).

I could google up ways to make a watch or go ask my friendly neighborhood watchmaker, and I can witness how watches are put together (not poofed here).

So how did god make stuff? "Poof" is your best guess, and therefore completely inadequate and unconvincing.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I just gave you a creation myth describing the planets in our solar system - does our solar system count as evidence? And I provided plenty of evidence in the last thread and you put me on ignore, so if you stopped reading my posts dont blame me for your self imposed ignorance.

Let me think about this for a minute.... no! Just like those who say the Mayans had extraterrestrial visits from the layout of one of their temple complexes being supposedly like that of the solar system. Well there are too things wrong with this, 1) They manipulated data to fit their conclusions, not made conclusions based on their data (i.e. they left out extra temples found in the complex), and 2) They presupposed that the Mayans knew about the solar system, without having a shred of proof. You did the same in bringing up your Babylonian creation epic.

I never mentioned evolution, and it is a story about how the world came about (among other things).

Well why did you bring it up in a thread about Creationism and Evolution then? This is what is known as spam, and by rights you should be reported for it. But I bet your real intention was "tell them about our interpretation of the creation story" and suddenly without explanation we'd throw our hands in the air "OMG he's right! The Babylonians knew all about the solar system! CREATIONISM!!!!! Bezerker is our true leader and saviour". Instead what you got was us being rightly sceptical and had to spin your way out of a hole.

 

[Fanatic Noob]

Welcome to OT where we discuss and discuss and discuss for hundreds and hundreds of posts what we each know can be explained easily in a sentence. But we try to have good time while doing so.

Why, thank you But this topic sounds so crazy, that I want to un-subscribe already and most of OT topics also

 

[magicfan101]

I think my points have gone unanswered yet again by Magicfan, and Trev has yet to respond.


I'm issuing another open challenge, to any YEC person, to see if they can even have a conversation with me without running away. I'll accept that as a start.

Rules:

1. You cannot ignore my points
2. I'll limit my points to 10 per post at most
3. I will refrain from responding until you've responded.
4. Same rules apply to you and me.


Topic:

Evidence for Creationism and Biblical Literalness.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

Spoiler :

* What makes a mutation bad in the first place?

Do you know? Or are all mutations "bad" in your mind?

Prove that "ALL SUCH MUTATIONS ARE INFORMATION-LOSING."

What does inbreeding have to do with evolution?

Do YEC people understand that the theory of evolution DOES NOT imply that new species are created by "a pair of mutants"?

Answer me, YES or NO?

sources used: Wikipedia.com, talkorgins mutations, Dr. John W. Kimball biology book(believes in evolution) , journal of creation article ,and nature.com causes of mutations


the problem with mutations in respect to good, bad ,and neutral between evolutionist and creationist is the effect of the mutation depends on the environment in which the mutations is expressed. but creationist have the upper hand since all "good" mutations are always losing the ability to do something. good and bad are irrelevant, since the large majority of mutations are errors in dna replication. mutations(copying mistakes) are overwhelmingly bad and neutral (neutral because we have not figured out the full functionality of the genome yet.) quote and a list below of genetic disorders

A single gene disorder is the result of a single mutated gene. There are estimated to be over 4000 human diseases caused by single gene defects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
and http://www.genome.gov/10001204

natural selection can not remove these mutations(copying errors).

Recessive mutations (most of them are) will not be seen except on the rare occasions that both parents contribute a mutation at the same locus to their child.

so they slowly build up in a POPULATION.
another proof that mutations are inherently bad, is the fact that DNA has a repair mechanism for dna damage and mutations. quotes below in spoiler because this deals more with abiogenesis, than ape ancestor to humans. comments in red are mine

Spoiler :

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair and these errors are a major source of mutation.
Given these properties of DNA damage and mutation, it can be seen that DNA damages are a special problem in non-dividing or slowly dividing cells, where unrepaired damages will tend to accumulate over time. On the other hand, in rapidly dividing cells, unrepaired DNA damages that do not kill the cell by blocking replication will tend to cause replication errors and thus mutation. The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell’s survival. Thus, in a population of cells comprising a tissue with replicating cells, mutant cells will tend to be lost. However infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism, because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer. Thus DNA damages in frequently dividing cells, because they give rise to mutations, are a prominent cause of cancer. In contrast, DNA damages in infrequently dividing cells are likely a prominent cause of aging.plus junk DNA has functions beside structure

but Of course, not all mutations are "bad." But, because so many mutations can cause cancer (wow contradiction), DNA repair is obviously a crucially important property of eukaryotic cells. However, too much of a good thing can be dangerous. If DNA repair were perfect and no mutations ever accumulated, there would be no genetic variation—and this variation serves as the raw material for evolution. Successful organisms have thus evolved the means to repair their DNA efficiently but not too efficiently, leaving just enough genetic variability for evolution to continue.from nature

the instructions to build this repair machinery is encoded on the very molecule it repairs, another vicious circle for evolution

it's counter intuitive that a proto-organism would mutate(copy mistakes) a dna repair system that removes mutations efficiently. when mutations are whats supposed to be the driving force of its very existence

Link to video.

notice words like "machine", "Assembly line", and comparisons to a computer
from pbs

 

[PeteAtoms]

natural selection can not remove these mutations(copying errors).

If all the individuals with a mutation dies w/out passing it on to offspring, natural selection removes the mutation.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

If all the individuals with a mutation dies w/out passing it on to offspring, natural selection removes the mutation.

Let me guess, he used scientific papers detailing the processes involved in ToE to try and disprove it, am I right?

I'm right, that makes me a very sad panda.

 

[Seon]

Seems as if Court is in Session.

the problem with mutations in respect to good, bad ,and neutral between evolutionist and creationist is the effect of the mutation depends on the environment in which the mutations is expressed. but creationist have the upper hand since all "good" mutations are always losing the ability to do something.

Have you proven this yet?

natural selection can not remove these mutations(copying errors).
so they slowly build up in a POPULATION.
another proof that mutations are inherently bad, is the fact that DNA has a repair mechanism for dna damage and mutations. quotes below in spoiler because this deals more with abiogenesis, than ape ancestor to humans. comments in red are mine

Do you understand this thing called reproductive science? Phenotypes? Crossing Over? Cellular Reproduction? Gametes? Meiosis?

but Of course, not all mutations are "bad." But, because so many mutations can cause cancer (wow contradiction),

I see no contradictions here.

The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell’s survival

This article does not disprove pizza's assertion that most mutations are neutral in effect.

However infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism, because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer

You bolded this words as if it means anything. But it really doesn't. Not in the way you want it to mean, at the very least.

from nature

what does this mean?

 

[magicfan101]

If all the individuals with a mutation dies w/out passing it on to offspring, natural selection removes the mutation.

perfect answer to your statement, mutations are adding up in the gene pool

The most harmful genes are recessive because that is really
the way they can survive. If a harmful gene were dominate,
the individual likely won't live long enough to have
offspring (although modern medicine is changing this
situation). That's why dominate harmful genes are so rare.

(Look up how Sickle Cell Aenima has survived if you want
want a really cool harmful genetic disorder that has a very
big advantage to some of those who carry it).

Recessive genes are pretty cool because they are able to
hide within a population, without falling out of a gene
pool. (It's important to keep in mind that recessive genes
are as likely to fall out of a gene pool as dominate
genes). For instance - my dad has blue eyes, and my mom
has brown eyes. I have brown eyes but I am carrying the
blue eye gene - but it doesn't show up. I am as likely to
pass on my dominate brown eyed gene as my blue eyed gene -
thus the survival of either is 50/50. The same goes for
harmful genes. They are able to survive in the gene pool
and are able to be passed on because they, like my dad's
blue eyed gene, are able to hide. Unless I marry someone
who also has a blue eyed gene (ha! - if only I can find a
sucker) then there is no way my blue eyed gene could show
up. Harmful recessive genes work the same way.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00460.htm

 

[Seon]

My my my, are you quoting sources that explain the intricacies behind evolution again?