Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Hockeycowboy]

You already asserted that there is evidence of design, and have repeatedly mentioned Behe as a source on the subject, yet Behe himself admits that there is no evidence whatsoever to support intelligent design.


And what do you think the significance of that is?


Then please demonstrate the truth of intelligent design.


It functions as a type-3 secretory system.
The Flagellum Unspun
The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems
Type three secretion system - Wikipedia

The problem with this, is.... if there is any type of ancestral lineage between the T3SS and the bacterial flagellum, it reveals a devolving of the b.f. IOW, since the b.f. is used in feeding its home prokaryotic bacteria, and the T3SS's function is to attack eukaryotes, a much-later design.....it's obvious which came first: the bacterial flagellum:

"The injectisome is found in a small subset of gram-negative bacteria that have a symbiotic or parasitic association with eukaryotes. Since eukaryotes evolved over a billion years after bacteria, this suggests that the injectisome arose after eukaryotes. However, flagella are found across the range of bacteria, and the need for chemotaxis and motility (i.e., using the flagellum to find food) precede the need for parasitism. In other words, we’d expect that the flagellum long predates the injectisome. And indeed, given the narrow distribution of injectisome-bearing bacteria, and the very wide distribution of bacteria with flagella, parsimony suggests the flagellum long predates injectisome rather than the reverse. "

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/why_the_type_ii/

And part of the purpose of "irreducible complexity" is to negate the pov that simpler systems evolved into more complex ones. The evidence supports that b.f. started out as complex.

The concept stands.

 

[ecco]

why would you expect scientific "peer-reviewed articles" on intelligent design when science only accepts naturalistic causes? It refuses to consider any ID explanation.

Good question. If science were to accept intelligent design, science would have to pursue investigations into the nature of the intelligent designer. How would we do that?

How can we differentiate between a literal interpretation of Genesis and LastThursdayism?





On the other hand, since "GodDidIt" has never been a viable explanation for anything, why would we waste time looking further into it?

 

[ecco]

I firmly believe the earth is billions of years old, I think there is enough scientific evidence to support that being the case.

Not if everything was created LastThursday.


Please familiarize yourself with LastThursdayism before responding.

 

[ecco]

"The injectisome is found in a small subset of gram-negative bacteria that have a symbiotic or parasitic association with eukaryotes. Since eukaryotes evolved over a billion years after bacteria, this suggests that the injectisome arose after eukaryotes. However, flagella are found across the range of bacteria, and the need for chemotaxis and motility (i.e., using the flagellum to find food) precede the need for parasitism. In other words, we’d expect that the flagellum long predates the injectisome. And indeed, given the narrow distribution of injectisome-bearing bacteria, and the very wide distribution of bacteria with flagella, parsimony suggests the flagellum long predates injectisome rather than the reverse. "

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/why_the_type_ii/

Oh goody, another copy and paste from a creo site. Can you tell us, in your own words, the significance of what you pasted?

 

[Audie]

This is circular reasoning at it's best....why would you expect scientific "peer-reviewed articles" on intelligent design when science only accepts naturalistic causes? It refuses to consider any ID explanation.

You keep bringing up Kitzmiller v. Dover.

How about this gem?

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

Sad that science isn't interested in discovering truth, only what reinforces naturalistic processes as per their (scientist's) limited parameters.

Show me what function the b f has by removing a part (s).

Forget the injectisome argument, based on "convergent evolution" hypotheses.

How can science accept an ID explanation when there is no
ID explanation?

Goddidit is not an explanation.

 

[Audie]

Oh goody, another copy and paste from a creo site. Can you tell us, in your own words, the significance of what you pasted?

If a person cannot explain something, they dont understand it-
still less make a meaningful comment on its significance.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

On the other hand, since "GodDidIt" has never been a viable explanation for anything, why would we waste time looking further into it?

“Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”
― Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

Oh goody, another copy and paste from a creo site. Can you tell us, in your own words, the significance of what you pasted?

i did. Both prior to, and after, I posted the source.

Sorry you don’t like it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”
― Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

i did. Both prior to, and after, I posted the source.

Sorry you don’t like it.

You do realize that Newton was only a genius when it came to physics and math. When it came to other sciences, not so much. He was also a believer in alchemy. Quoting people that were known to be wrong when outside of their comfort zone in no way at all helps your arguments.


Since you believe in a young Earth perhaps you should learn how scientists knew that the Earth was not young long before Darwin's time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with this, is.... if there is any type of ancestral lineage between the T3SS and the bacterial flagellum, it reveals a devolving of the b.f. IOW, since the b.f. is used in feeding its home prokaryotic bacteria, and the T3SS's function is to attack eukaryotes, a much-later design.....it's obvious which came first: the bacterial flagellum:

"The injectisome is found in a small subset of gram-negative bacteria that have a symbiotic or parasitic association with eukaryotes. Since eukaryotes evolved over a billion years after bacteria, this suggests that the injectisome arose after eukaryotes. However, flagella are found across the range of bacteria, and the need for chemotaxis and motility (i.e., using the flagellum to find food) precede the need for parasitism. In other words, we’d expect that the flagellum long predates the injectisome. And indeed, given the narrow distribution of injectisome-bearing bacteria, and the very wide distribution of bacteria with flagella, parsimony suggests the flagellum long predates injectisome rather than the reverse. "

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/why_the_type_ii/

And part of the purpose of "irreducible complexity" is to negate the pov that simpler systems evolved into more complex ones. The evidence supports that b.f. started out as complex.

The concept stands.

Nope:

Oh wait, that is just a poorly illustrated 12 year old YouTube video, with a terrible music score. Hmm, let me see if I can expand on that a bit:


Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

There you go, that should take a few days to pore through It is a much longer paper that the video was based upon. And of course that paper is not based just upon the author's work. There are links to over 200 peer reviewed journals on different steps of the process.

There is a very good reason that the rotator flagellum argument is laughed at these days.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Audie said: ”Goddidit is not an explanation.”

Why not? “Life originated by itself”, is?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Since you believe in a young Earth perhaps you should learn how scientists knew that the Earth was not young long before Darwin's time.

But I don’t believe in a young earth!

There’s been so much dialogue between us, yet you still have flawed assumptions regarding my beliefs.

Perhaps you “should learn”, before you respond.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Audie said: ”Goddidit is not an explanation.”

Why not? “Life originated by itself”, is?

But we don't leave it at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I don’t believe in a young earth!

There’s been so much dialogue between us, yet you still have flawed assumptions regarding my beliefs.

Perhaps you “should learn”, before you respond.

then why post in this thread? Read the title.

You also just implied that you do not believe the Noah's Ark myth. Is that the case? If not you should be able to understand my confusion.

 

[Audie]

“Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”
― Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

i did. Both prior to, and after, I posted the source.

Sorry you don’t like it.

You sure have to go back a long way to find a
notable scientist who did not know any better
than that.

Aristotle thought a crocodile had a hinged upper jaw.

Its ok, nobody knows everything.

What is not so ok is that while you could show
Aristotle a crocodile jaw and expect him, or Newton
similarly shown a correction to say, like anyone
more interested in knowledge than bitterly
clinging to outmoded / falsified ideology,
"oh I was wrong, that is interesting". Or words
to the effect.

The CREATIONIST on the other hand is utterly
committed to any extreme of intellectual dishonesty
an d blind faith.

Bringing Newton in to defend intellectual dishonesty
is extremely disrespectful.

 

[Audie]

@Audie said: ”Goddidit is not an explanation.”

Why not? “Life originated by itself”, is?

No, neither is an explanation. Isnt that obvious?
Nothing is explained in the hows whys and whens.
Stuff the cops want; you know, the exact details.
They would never be satisfied with "goddidit"
or "natruredidit."

"Goddidit" is a guess, plucked out of an empty sky.

Life arising naturally, as a result of the inherent properties
of matter is also a guess.

Nobody knows.

A wild guess is one based on zero data, nothing
to go on,

A reasonable guess, aka educated guess is a
bit different.

Either or both may be wrong.

But you know all of this. else, I guess
Though I know not why you bothered to post the
above. Maybe you thought it was a gotcha?
Silly man. Try harder.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@Audie said: ”Goddidit is not an explanation.”

Why not? “Life originated by itself”, is?

Where is the explanation part???

 

[Audie]

Where is the explanation part???

Sheesh, that is what I said, except I used a
whole lot more words.

 

[Polymath257]

@Audie said: ”Goddidit is not an explanation.”

Why not? “Life originated by itself”, is?

Stated like that, No, it isn't.

But, stated as the claim that known organic chemicals and combine via natural processes to form the polymers of life and that those can spontaneously organize into spherical vesicles that reproduce, giving rise to early forms of life. Well, that *is* a potential explanation.

The differences? Among other things, the 'God did it' explanation doesn't give a meaningful test to distinguish between 'natural processes' and 'divine intervention'.

Think of it like this. Suppose I see the pyramids and wonder how they came into existence. Simply saying 'the Egyptians did it' isn't an explanation. The issue is *how* the Egyptians did it. To have an explanation requires much, much more than pointing to some people, or a deity. It requires a detailed description of the processes involved, how those processes correspond to the known facts (about pyramids, or about life), how other possible explanations are shown to be less encompassing than the given one, etc.

Now, there *are* fairly well established procedures for determining when some sort of intelligence is involved in a process. Among these is determining what sorts of things *can* happen naturally and without the intervention of an intelligence. If nothing else, the current investigations into abiogenesis are determining exactly this information.

If, after we thoroughly understand the biochemistry of the early Earth, the possible environments in which abiogenesis could have occurred, and after we have managed to create life ourselves by a variety of methods, *then* and only then might we be able to say that an intelligence was involved originally. But that is a long, long way off at this point. Even if some sort of intelligence was involved, we simply do not know enough about the relevant processes to say such. And, given the progress made in these studies, it becomes more and more plausible that no intelligence was required.

 

[We Never Know]

Stated like that, No, it isn't.

But, stated as the claim that known organic chemicals and combine via natural processes to form the polymers of life and that those can spontaneously organize into spherical vesicles that reproduce, giving rise to early forms of life. Well, that *is* a potential explanation.

The differences? Among other things, the 'God did it' explanation doesn't give a meaningful test to distinguish between 'natural processes' and 'divine intervention'.

Think of it like this. Suppose I see the pyramids and wonder how they came into existence. Simply saying 'the Egyptians did it' isn't an explanation. The issue is *how* the Egyptians did it. To have an explanation requires much, much more than pointing to some people, or a deity. It requires a detailed description of the processes involved, how those processes correspond to the known facts (about pyramids, or about life), how other possible explanations are shown to be less encompassing than the given one, etc.

Now, there *are* fairly well established procedures for determining when some sort of intelligence is involved in a process. Among these is determining what sorts of things *can* happen naturally and without the intervention of an intelligence. If nothing else, the current investigations into abiogenesis are determining exactly this information.

If, after we thoroughly understand the biochemistry of the early Earth, the possible environments in which abiogenesis could have occurred, and after we have managed to create life ourselves by a variety of methods, *then* and only then might we be able to say that an intelligence was involved originally. But that is a long, long way off at this point. Even if some sort of intelligence was involved, we simply do not know enough about the relevant processes to say such. And, given the progress made in these studies, it becomes more and more plausible that no intelligence was required.

"But, stated as the claim that known organic chemicals and combine via natural processes to form the polymers of life and that those can spontaneously organize into spherical vesicles that reproduce, giving rise to early forms of life."

That was before life existed. What force, drive, cause, etc was involved in those vesicles becoming spherical and also reproduce?

 

[We Never Know]

It's possible that in this 13.7 billion years old universe there could be other life out there billions of years older than earth itself.
It's possible that that life has knowledge billions of years ahead of us.
It's possible that that life could have beamed life cells here to see how it would evolve.
Anything is possible until it's shown to be impossible.