Showing posts with label Jonathan Sarfati. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jonathan Sarfati. Show all posts

Friday, June 26, 2015

Design, Deluge and Dilemma - Dr. Jonathan Sarfati






http://creation.com | Jonathan Sarfati - Ph. D. Physical Chemistry, author and speaker for Creation Ministries International - compares the secular models of history to the ultimate standard for history - the Word of God.

Jesus is the Creator, as well as the Kinsman-Redeemer, meaning that He must be our blood relative. This means that all humanity must come from Adam, also the ancestor of Jesus, the Last Adam. Adam's sin brought death, so Jesus brought Resurrection—Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15 make an explicit connection.

Since death came through sin, fossil record must pre-date Adam. Explained by Genesis global Flood, which has other evidences.

 
Design in nature, including micro-machines. Coded information stored on DNA.

Goo-to-you evolution requires information increase, but what we see are sorting out already-existing information, natural selection culling information, and mutations corrupting information.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Real Science Supports the Bible - Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D



Seminar by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D.
Seattle Creation Conference, September 2013
Woodin Valley Baptist Church, Bothell WA.

Description:

It has become almost axiomatic to some that all science evidence supports evolution, and that Biblical creation is merely a myth. In this presentation, Dr Sarfati's presents a slew of rational and credible arguments showing that "real science" supports the Bible. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of biology, geology, fossils, radiometric dating, and more, Sarfati identifies flaw after flaw in the evolutionary worldview.

About the Speaker:

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is a research scientist and speaker with Creation Ministries International (creation.com). He was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and later studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled 'A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules'. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.

Files:

This video was recorded during the Seattle Creation Conference, which is organized each year by the Northwest Creation Network

Seattle Creation Conference
May 30-31, 2014
Woodin Valley Baptist Church
5400 228th Street S.E.
Bothell, WA 98021
Watch 2013 Videos

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The Greatest Hoax on Earth by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati



HAS DAWKINS OVERREACHED? COULD HIS CHALLENGE BE A HUGE OPPORTUNITY FOR CHRISTIANS?

History may show that Dawkins has done the church a favour, by waking it out of its complacency on the creation/evolution issue. By focusing the battle right at the foundations, and by putting all the evidence he can muster on display, he has provided a chance for Christians to see via this response that they do not have to keep retreating on this issue, for fear of being seen to contradict ‘the facts of science’…

The Greatest Hoax on Earth? meets Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth head-on. Dr Sarfati firmly and comprehensively answers Dawkins’ challenge, chapter after chapter, covering a vast range of disciplines in his trademark crisp, clear style. He convincingly shows, for those with ears to hear, that to believe the Bible’s account of Creation/Fall/Redemption straightforwardly not only does not commit intellectual suicide, it is if anything the intellectually superior position.
In the process, he also ably exposes the types of deceitful tactics utilized in many anti-creation arguments. (Hence the ‘hoax’ in the Sarfati book’s title; CMI of course does not claim that people teach and promote evolution while disbelieving it.)

To the Christian we say—if your creationist fare has been by people with questionable qualifications and a flair for self-promotion using dubious arguments, you will find this book in another league altogether. It is written by arguably the finest mind in creation/evolution and Bible-science apologetics today—backed by a superb team of qualified and experienced colleagues.

To the not-yet-believer we say—if you have been exposed to the sorts of arguments that Dawkins musters, you owe it to yourself to read this book (not distorted representations of its contents).
Read it—give it away in bulk—spread this link—help fight the battle where it rages the fiercest.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Are Miracles Scientific? · Dr. Jonathan Sarfati



Presented at Rocky Mtn Creation Fellowship  in2012 | Dr. Sarfati answers the question, "Can observational science verify when miracles occur?"

For more on this topic see http://creation.com/miracles

Get this talk on DVD: http://www.amazon.com/Are-Miracles-Scientific-Jonathan-Sarfati/dp/192164365X

 Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.

Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist (Australia)


Education

    B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted)
    Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry)

Thursday, August 8, 2013

The Christian Roots of Science & Busting The Myths of Science - Dr. Jonathan Sarfati



Description:

Why did science flourish in the West, and only the West? The biblical worldview provided the presuppositions that allowed science to flourish while it was stillborn in other places such as Greece and China. Evolutionists deny this biblical foundation for science by accusing Christianity of superstitions that held science back. Jonathan deftly busts the myth of the 'Dark Ages'—a time
marked by many scientific advances. He also busts the myths of Galileo, belief in a flat earth, and more.

 

 

 

About the Speaker:

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is a research scientist and speaker with Creation Ministries International (creation.com). He was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and later studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled 'A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules'. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.

Files:

This video was recorded during the Seattle Creation Conference, which is organized each year by the Northwest Creation Network

Monday, August 5, 2013

Design, Deluge, and Dilemma - Dr. Jonathan Sarfati



Seminar by Jonathan Sarfati
Cedar Park Christian School, Mountlake Terrace WA. May 31, 2013.

Description
- Widespread apostasy in young people—not because of lack of evidence, but lack of dissemination of the evidence.

- Jesus as Creator, as well as Kinsman-Redeemer, meaning that He must be our blood relative. This means that all humanity must come from Adam, also the ancestor of Jesus, the Last Adam. Adam's sin brought death, so Jesus brought Resurrection—Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15 make an explicit connection.

- Since death came through sin, fossil record must pre-date Adam. Explained by Genesis global Flood, which has other evidences.

- Design in nature, including micro-machines. Coded information stored on DNA.

- Goo-to-you evolution requires information increase, but what we see are sorting out already-existing information, natural selection culling information, and mutations corrupting information.

Northwest Creation Network now has their own Youtube channel at www.youtube.com/nwcreationnetwork

About the Speaker:
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is a research scientist and speaker with Creation Ministries International (http://creation.com). He was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and later studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled 'A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules'. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.

This video was recorded during by the Northwest Creation Network while speaking to the junior and senior high students at Cedar Park Christian School - MLT.

Purchase books and videos at the Creation Science Store.
http://store.nwcreation.net/

Northwest Creation Network
http://nwcreation.net

Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/nwcreationnetwork

Learn more about how science supports the Bible at the CreationWiki: Encyclopedia of Creation Science.
http://creationwiki.org

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Radioactive Dating and a Young Earth - Dr. Jim Mason | Creation Superconference 2012



Dr. Mason gives proof as to how nuclear physics supports the Bible and why radioactive dating is not valid.

Nuclear physicist embraces biblical creation

Jonathan Sarfati chats with Dr Jim Mason

from http://creation.com/jim-mason-nuclear-physicist
Dr James Mason and wife
James Mason and wife Dr Jim Mason has a B.Sc. in Engineering Physics from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and a Ph.D. in Experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He had a 37-year engineering and management career in defence electronics developing ASW (anti-submarine warfare) systems and land tactical C4 (computerized command, control, communications) systems. This included the positions of Vice President and Engineering and Chief Technology Officer for one of Canada’s leading defence electronics system integration companies and being a member of that company’s Executive Committee. Dr Mason’s hobbies include skiing (downhill and cross-country), gardening/landscaping, home renovating and spending time with his two grandchildren. He and his wife Rosemary have three children and reside just outside Lakefield, Ontario near their two granddaughters.

Biblical Christianity: the perfect logical system

Without the first 11 chapters of Genesis being taken as historical narrative and plainly understood as written, the rest of the Bible and, in particular, the New Testament message of salvation, does not compute.
Recently during a ministry tour of Canada, I had the pleasure of travelling with Dr Jim Mason, CMI-Canada’s newest speaker. I was interested to find out that he didn’t become a Christian till he was almost 40. So why would a logical scientist accept something that the world largely mocks?
James Mason, wife and granddaughters
Dr James Mason, wife and granddaughters
“I have become increasingly amazed at how comprehensive and yet internally consistent the Bible and Christianity are. I spent most of my working career as a System Engineer developing complex and sophisticated defence electronic systems. Consequently, I have come to think of the Bible and Christianity as the perfect system.”
Dr Mason compares biblical Christianity with the Apollo system that sent men to the moon and returned them safely: this included everything that was required, and didn’t have anything unnecessary to its goal. The same is true of biblical Christianity. “However”, Jim says, “the Apollo system, being man-made, was not perfect as amply demonstrated by the near catastrophe of the Apollo 13 mission. Conversely, the Bible/Christianity is perfect, having been crafted by God.”
And as Dr Mason later realised, a vital foundation to this system is the first 11 chapters of Genesis:


“Without these chapters being taken as historical narrative and plainly understood as written, the rest of the Bible and, in particular, the New Testament message of salvation, does not compute. It’s like the Saturn V rocket of the Apollo system. Without it, achieving the mission is impossible. Thanks, in part, to the excellent material on the CMI website, I came to realize that such an interpretation is well-supported scientifically, including in my own area of nuclear physics.”
But if Genesis is foundational, then how can evolution and long ages be reconciled to the Bible? Jim realised that it couldn’t:
“It destroys the Gospel by destroying its foundation. Adam and Eve disappear, original sin disappears, death through sin disappears, the need for a Saviour disappears and indeed, in the end, salvation and eternal life disappear.”
Furthermore, “evolution is at odds with the Bible everywhere”:
“The Big Bang says nothing created everything, versus the Bible that teaches that everything was created by the Word of God; the earth, sun, moon and stars formed by gradual accretion over billions of years rather than in a few days by the Word of God; life occurring by accident rather than by holy fiat; humans evolving over millions of years from an ape-like ancestor rather than being created in the image of God in a single day; death being an essential part of the world from the start rather than being an unintended but necessary consequence of mankind’s original sin.”
No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change …. The exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it … the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent. James Clerk Maxwell

Real science supports the Bible

So, what areas of Dr Mason’s own expertise support the biblical creation model and oppose the secular evolutionary one? Jim points to the building blocks of nature and their economy of design, something that impressed the great creationist founder of electromagnetism, James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879), who wrote:
“No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change … . The exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it … the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent.”1
Modern science strengthens this argument, as Jim explains:
“Elementary particle physics tells us there are only 3 fundamental particles, each occurring in a few variants resulting in a total of only 24 elementary particles. Everything in the entire universe is made from and held together by these 24 particles.”
Yet from just these 24 basic building blocks, “There are 118 chemical elements which can be combined to create almost innumerable compounds like iron oxide, calcium carbonate and amino acids; and these can be combined to create almost innumerable substances like bubble gum, proteins and concrete; and these can be combined to create even grander structures like buildings and airplanes and computers and even the human body. That sure looks like design at its best.”
“Yet the evolutionists would have us believe that these 24 particles just happened by accident and then just happened to accidentally combine into particles that then just happened to combine into the elements, that then just happened to combine into a few compounds that then just happened to combine into a cell that then just happened to evolve into some humans and that only the airplanes, buildings and computers had to have a designer. Who are they kidding?”
Furthermore, he explains that only 12 of these particles provide 3 of the 4 forces that hold everything in the universe together, “design at its best”:
“These are the strong nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together, the weak nuclear force that enables some types of radioactivity and the electromagnetic force which is responsible for just about every phenomenon we experience on a daily basis. The fourth, and weakest force, is gravity. These forces cover an incredible range of strengths and all behave differently: gravity only attracts; the electromagnetic force both attracts and repels; both act over infinitely long distances whereas the strong force only acts within the nucleus. Gravity, the weakest force, accounts for the motion of the stars and planets; the electromagnetic force accounts for light travelling from the stars to Earth. Finally, the strong force keeps all the nuclei in atoms from flying apart due to the electromagnetic repulsion between the protons.
“But that is not all. The relationship between these forces is so finely tuned that even a slight change in just one of these relationships would render the universe as we know it impossible. An accident? I don’t think so!”
In cases where the actual age of the rock is known, radiometric dating techniques typically give wildly erroneous ages. For example, rock formed in a lava flow from Mt. St. Helens in 1986 was radiometrically dated as 2.6 million years old!

Radiometric dating

Probably the strongest ‘evidence’ for the long ages required by evolution is right in Dr Mason’s field of expertise: radiometric dating. But he explained that it doesn’t actually measure age at all. Rather, it measures the ratio of the radioactive ‘parent’ element to the stable ‘daughter’ element in, say, a sample of rock today. And the age must be inferred by using these measurements in a calculation, and this relies on several unverifiable assumptions; e.g.:
“ … that there was no daughter element present when the rock was formed—i.e. the daughter element is entirely due to decay of the parent in the sample; that no amount of either parent or daughter has leached into or out of the rock since its formation; and that decay rate has not changed over time. If any of these assumptions are incorrect, it can dramatically change the calculation of the age. Since it is impossible to know for sure whether any of these have happened, it is not reasonable to trust the calculated age as accurate.”
Dr Mason points out:
“In cases where the actual age of the rock is known, radiometric dating techniques typically give wildly erroneous ages. For example, rock formed in a lava flow from Mt. St. Helens in 1986 was radiometrically dated as 2.6 million years old! If, every time you read a newspaper report concerning an incident about which you had first-hand knowledge, you found that the newspaper report was totally wrong, how many of these would you read before you began to suspect that all the reporting was wrong?”
After about 90,000 years of decay, there is so little 14C left that even today’s very sensitive instruments cannot detect it. … Yet 14C has been found in diamonds … even though the diamonds are allegedly 1 to 3 billion years old.
Furthermore, he shows that the long-agers’ favourite dating method, carbon dating, supports a much younger age. That’s because radioactive carbon is so short-lived it should not be present in anything over 100,000 years old, yet it is found in coal and diamonds allegedly many millions of years old (see his explanation in the box below).
Further evidence for a young age from nuclear physics comes from large amounts of helium found in tiny zircon crystals extracted from rocks that are allegedly 1.5 billion years old. The amount of uranium and lead present in the crystals indicated that the helium was the result of radioactive decay of the uranium. However, in the supposed 1.5 billion years of the rock’s existence, essentially all the helium that would have been produced by this decay should have diffused out of the crystals. Using the amount of helium actually present in the crystals and the rate of diffusion of helium through these crystals as measured by an independent laboratory, the age of the crystals, and therefore the rock from which they came was only about 5,700±2,000 years! This implies that the decay rate was much faster in the past—undermining a key assumption of radiometric dating.2

Encouragement

It should be very encouraging for scientifically-minded young people in church homes to see that real scientists like Dr Mason can embrace biblical creation. So did he have any advice for students thinking of studying science?
“Go for it! Science—that is operational science, how the world works—is fascinating stuff—and it is operational science that has provided all the technological and medical advances that make our present age so wonderful. However, be careful not to confuse the facts of operational science with the musings of origins science—that is the materialistic speculations about how things came to be. Don’t be afraid to ask, ‘Why do you say that?’ or ‘How do you know?’ about anything and everything. Truth will stand up to hard questions and deep digging!”

Carbon dating points to a young age.

Jim Mason


Scattered coalRadioactive 14C is continually being formed in the atmosphere, and makes up about a trillionth of all carbon atoms on Earth. Because it is biologically almost indistinguishable from non-radioactive carbon (12C), it is absorbed by plants during photosynthesis and then by animals eating the plants and other animals eating the animals that eat the plants and, of course, by humans when we eat our burgers and broccoli. When the plant or animal dies, it stops absorbing carbon and the 14C decays without being replaced, thus changing the ratio of 14C to 12C in the dead plant/animal over time. Using very sensitive instruments, the current ratio in a sample of the dead plant/animal can be measured and used (along with the known rate of decay of 14C and the assumption that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as today) to calculate an age for the specimen. However, after about 90,000 years of decay, there is so little 14C left that even today’s very sensitive instruments cannot detect it.

Coal

Black diamondNumerous samples of coal from different seams in different parts of the US have been found to contain substantial amounts of 14C, even though, according to the evolutionary time scale, the samples are allegedly between 37 million and 318 million years old. What’s more, the amount of 14C found is of the order of 100 times the sensitivity of the instruments, so it is not simply a minor measurement blip. Some people try to dismiss this as contamination of the sample during processing, but the laboratories that do these measurements have developed sophisticated procedures to make sure that this does not happen. Interestingly, despite the supposed wide range in ages, the age calculated from the 14C measurements for all the coal samples is very similar—about 50,000 years.



This is still appreciably larger than the biblical age. However, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of 14C in the atmosphere at creation was zero rather than the same as today, that it would take time for it to increase to today’s level, and that the disruption of the Flood would cause other drastic changes to this ratio. Incorporating these things into the calculations can easily bring the computed age in line with the biblical age.3

Diamonds

Carbon-14 in diamonds is another example of a young age measurement in substances that are ‘supposed to be’ very old. Diamond is the hardest substance on earth, because it’s an extremely rigidly-packed crystal of carbon. Therefore it’s impervious to the alleged possible contamination that has been used to try to dismiss the results for coal, although unreasonably. Yet 14C has been found in diamonds at essentially the same level as in the coal samples even though the diamonds are allegedly 1 to 3 billion years old.4

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Maxwell, J.C., ‘Discourse on Molecules’, a paper presented to the British Association at Bradford in 1873, as cited in Lamont, A., James Clerk Maxwell, Creation 15(3):45–47, 1993; creation.com/maxwell. Return to text.
  2. Humphreys, R., Nuclear decay: evidence for a young world, Impact 352, October 2002; www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm. Return to text.
  3. Baumgardner, J., 14C evidence for a recent global flood and a young earth; in Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. and Chaffin, E., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. II, ch. 8, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 2005. Return to text.
  4. See also Sarfati, J., Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend, Creation 28(4):26–27, 2006; creation.com/diamonds. Return to text.


Friday, March 1, 2013

The Christian Roots of Science - Dr. Jonathan Sarfati | 2012 Creation Superconference





Dr. Sarfati explains how modern science flourished under a "Christian Only" worldview.
The Christian Roots of Science DVD
Click the image to get this talk on DVD.

Learn how the Christian worldview provided the assumptions required for comprehending how science worked at all. See also why a straightforward understanding of our world from the biblical context motivated further great advances. Also learn the real truth about Galileo and the myth of flat-earth belief.


Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.

Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist (Australia)

Biography

Dr Jonathan Sarfati was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and later studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.

Dr Sarfati has been a Christian since 1984. He has long been interested in apologetics, the defense of the faith, and was a co-founder of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (New Zealand).1 Creation vs evolution is of course a vital area, because of the ramifications for the doctrines of Creation, the Fall which brought death into the world, and their links to the doctrines of the Incarnation, Atonement and Bodily Resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ.

In August 1996, he returned to the country of his birth to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for Creation Ministries International in Brisbane. In this capacity, he is co-editor of Creation magazine, and also writes and reviews articles for Journal of Creation, CMI’s in-depth peer-reviewed publication, as well as contributing to CMI’s website.
In 1999, his first book was published—Refuting Evolution, which countered a teachers guidebook by the National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, which had been widely circulated and publicized. Refuting Evolution now has 450,000 copies in print. Later that year he was a co-author of the updated and expanded Answers Book [note: now entitled The Creation Answers Book], answering 20 of the most-asked questions about creation/evolution. He later wrote Refuting Evolution 2, countering the PBS Evolution series and an anticreationist article in Scientific American.

In 2004, he wrote Refuting Compromise, defending a straightforward biblical creation timeline and a global flood, and answering biblical and scientific objections, concentrating on the errant teachings of day-age/local flood advocate Hugh Ross. It has been acclaimed as ‘the most powerful biblical and scientific defense of a straightforward view of Genesis creation ever written!’ See the introductory chapter and some reviews.

In 2006, he co-authored 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History with Don Batten, as a concise reference guide for Christians, including pastors and theologians, why Genesis can be trusted as real history of Creation about 6000 years ago and a global Flood.

In 2008, he finished By Design: Evidence for nature’s Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible. This demonstrates many examples of design in many areas, shows why chemical evolution can’t explain the origin of first life, and answers many objections to the Intelligent Design movement by invoking the biblical Creation-Fall model.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati playing blindfold chess
In 2010, Dr Sarfati wrote The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution, a response to leading atheopath Richard Dawkins’ latest book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (see website).

That year, Dr Sarfati emigrated to the USA with his wife to work in the CMI–USA office as speaker and Head Scientist.


In 2012, he considerably expanded and updated a classic general apologetics book, Christianity for Skeptics, by Dr Steve Kumar of New Zealand. This presents a positive case for the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, and the divinity and resurrection of Christ, and answers challenges from suffering, atheism, Eastern philosophy, and Islam. The update now also contains cutting edge material on design in nature, the Christian roots of science, and answering the ‘new atheists’.
Dr Sarfati is also a keen chess player. He is a former New Zealand Chess Champion, and represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads, and drew with Boris Spassky, world champion 1969–1972, in a tournament game (those interested in the game score can see this chess site). In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (FM). Dr Sarfati regularly accepts challenges from multiple players where he plays ‘blindfold’, i.e. from memory without sight or any physical contact with the board, so moves are communicated via a recognized chess notation (See an example at the Croydon Chess Club). Twelve is the most played simultaneously to date—see photo, above right.

Dr Sarfati is married with one stepson and two grand-daughters.

Education

  1. B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted)
  2. Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry)

Honors/Awards/Associations

  1. 1988, F.I.D.E. Master title, The International Chess Federation

Monday, November 19, 2012

The ATP Synthase Enzyme - Super Intelligent Design!



http://creation.com | This animated sequence shows the ATP Synthase enzyme in operation. The animation is based on an incredible series of scientific discoveries. Only the colours show artistic license.

ATP, or Adenosine Tri-Phosphate, is the energy currency of the cell. ATP is produced by a tiny molecular rotary motor, rotating at up to 7,000 rpm. These are so small that 100,000 would fit side-by-side in a millimetre. A current of protons drives the motor, unlike man-made electric motors, which use electrons.

This portion of the enzyme is where Adenosine Di-Phosphate is combined with a phosphate ion, in the presence of a catalyst to produce ATP which is then released, making way for the next cycle. A top view of the enzyme shows the sequential operation. Almost every bio-chemical process in your body requires ATP.

Such a nano-machine exhibits all the characteristics of super-intelligent design. ATP is vital for life and many of these motors were needed before the first living cell could exist. An evolutionary impossibility!



Related Articles:
Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase): http://creation.com/design-in-living-organisms-motors-atp-synthase
ATP synthase: majestic molecular machine made by a mastermind: http://creation.com/atp-synthase
Is ATP synthase found in all life?: http://creation.com/atp-synthase-in-all-life

Related Products:
The Creation Answers Book - http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-505
Creation Magazine subscription - http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=90-3-003
What Darwin Couldn't Know tract - http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=00-1-534
Exploring the World of Biology book - http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-1-535



Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase)

Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor
Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor, after Ref. 1. (from The Bacterial Flagellum, docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm>)

In our everyday experience, we can usually tell whether something has been designed. The main evidence is high information content. The information content of any arrangement is the size, in bits, of the shortest algorithm required to generate that arrangement. This means that repetitive structures, like crystals, have a low information content, because all that is needed is to specify a few positions, then the instructions ‘more of the same’. The difference between a crystal and an enzyme or DNA is like the difference between a book containing nothing but ABCD repeated and a book of Shakespeare.

On a practical level, the information specifies the many parts needed to make machines work. Often, the removal of one part can disrupt the whole machine. Biochemist Michael Behe, in his book Darwin’s Black Box (right), calls this irreducible complexity.1 He gives the example of a very simple machine: a mousetrap. This would not work without a platform, holding bar, spring, hammer and catch, all in the right place. The thrust of Behe’s book is that many structures in living organisms show irreducible complexity, far in excess of a mousetrap or indeed any man-made machine.

Motors: a case study

Motors are irreducibly complex, because they need many parts working together to function. For example, an electric motor needs a power source, fixed stator, movable rotor, and a commutator or slip rings.

ATP synthase motor
ATP synthase motor, after Ref. 4. (from ATP Mechanisms Revealed, docs/mm/atpmechanism.htm>)

The more parts needed for a machine, the harder it is to make it smaller. Miniaturisation is such a vital part of the computer industry, and the best human minds are constantly working at it. And though miniaturised motors would be very useful, e.g. for unblocking clogged arteries and blood cleaning, the number of parts makes it difficult to make them below a certain size. But ingenious scientists are making them smaller all the time.2

However the design in living organisms has far exceeded our most painstaking efforts. Bacteria propel themselves using flagella (singular flagellum, from the Latin for whip), filaments propelled by a true rotary motor. This motor is only the size of a virus, thus far smaller than anything man-made. Yet it can rotate at over 1000 times per second.3

But even this impressively tiny motor is not the tiniest in God’s creation. In a paper published in March 1997, Hiroyuki Noji et al. directly observed the rotation of the enzyme F1-ATPase, a subunit of a larger enzyme, ATP synthase.4,5 This had been suggested as the mechanism for the enzyme’s operation by Paul Boyer.6 Structural determination by X-ray diffraction by a team led by John Walker had supported this theory.7 A few months after Noji et al published their work, it was announced that Boyer and Walker had won a half share of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their discovery.8
The F1-ATPase motor has nine components—five different proteins with the stoichiometry of 3a:3b:1g:1d:1e. In bovine mitochondria, they contain 510, 482, 272, 146 and 50 amino acids respectively, so Mr = 371,000. F1-ATPase is a flattened sphere about 10 nm across by 8 nm high—so tiny that 1017 would fill the volume of a pinhead. This has been shown to spin ‘like a motor’ to produce ATP, a chemical which is the ‘energy currency’ of life.9 This motor produces an immense torque (turning force) for its size—in the experiment, it rotated a strand of another protein, actin, 100 times its own length. Also, when driving a heavy load, it probably changes to a lower gear, as any well-designed motor should.

ATP synthase also contains the membrane-embedded FO subunit functioning as a proton (hydrogen ion) channel. Protons flowing through FO provide the driving force of the F1-ATPase motor. They turn a wheel-like structure as water turns a water wheel, but researchers are still trying to determine precisely how. This rotation changes the conformation of the three active sites on the enzyme. Then each in turn can attach ADP and inorganic phosphate to form ATP. Unlike most enzymes, where energy is needed to link the building blocks, ATP synthase uses energy to link them to the enzyme, and throw off the newly formed ATP molecules. Separating the ATP from the enzyme needs much energy.

Note: the names of the two components are historical. The F1 unit comes from the term ‘Fraction 1’, and the name FO (written as a subscript capital O, not zero) is due to its being the oligomycin-binding fraction.

ATP synthase is the central enzyme in energy conversion in mitochondria (where they are embedded into the cristae, folds in the mitochondrion’s inner membrane), chloroplasts and bacteria. This probably makes ATP synthase the most ubiquitous protein on Earth. Since energy is required for life, and all life uses ATP as its energy currency (each of us synthesizes and consumes half our bodyweight of ATP per day!), life could not have evolved before this motor was fully functional. Natural selection by definition is differential reproduction, so requires self-reproducing entities to start with. So even if a series of gradual steps could be imagined up this peak of ‘Mount Improbable’, there would be no natural selection to enable that climb.

One of the Nature articles was appropriately entitled ‘Real Engines of Creation’. Unfortunately, despite the evidence for exquisite design, many scientists (including the editor of Nature) still have a blind faith that mutations and natural selection could build such machines.

Animation of ATP synthase.
Would any evidence convince evolutionists?

The famous British evolutionist (and communist) J.B.S. Haldane claimed in 1949 that evolution could never produce ‘various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect.’10 Therefore such machines in organisms would, in his opinion, prove evolution false. These molecular motors have indeed fulfilled one of Haldane’s criteria. Also, turtles11 and monarch butterflies12 which use magnetic sensors for navigation fulfil Haldane’s other criterion. I wonder whether Haldane would have had a change of heart if he had been alive to see these discoveries. Many evolutionists rule out intelligent design a priori, so the evidence, overwhelming as it is, would probably have no effect.

Animations (off-site)

Related articles

References

  1. Behe, M.J., 1996. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, New York. Reviewed by Ury, T.H., 1997. Journal of Creation 11(3):283–291. Return to text
  2. Hogan, H., 1996. Invasion of the micromachines. New Scientist 150(2036):28–33. Return to text
  3. For a good description, see Behe, Ref. 1. Return to text
  4. Hiroyuki Noji et al., 1997. Direct observation of the rotation of F1-ATPase. Nature 386(6622):299–302. Comment by Block, S. Real engines of creation. Same issue, pp. 217–219. Return to text
  5. Wu, C., 1997. Molecular motor spins out energy for cells. Science News 151(12):173. Return to text
  6. Boyer, P., 1993. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1140:215–250. Return to text
  7. Abrahams, J.P. et al., 1994. Structure at 2.8 Å resolution of F1-ATPase from bovine heart mitochondria. Nature 370(6491):621–628. Comment by Cross, R.L. Our primary source of ATP. Same issue, pp. 594–595. Return to text
  8. Service, R.F., 1997. Awards for High-Energy Molecules and Cool Atoms. Science 278(5338):578–579. The third winner is Jens Skou of the University of Aarhus in Denmark. Forty years ago, he was the first to identify an enzyme that moves substances through cell membranes (in this case, sodium and potassium ions). This is a key function of all cells. Return to text
  9. ATP stands for adenosine triphosphate. It is a high energy compound, and releases this energy by losing a phosphate group to give ADP, adenosine diphosphate. Return to text
  10. Dewar, D., Davies, L.M. and Haldane, J.B.S., 1949. Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane, Watts & Co. Ltd / Paternoster Press, London, p. 90. Return to text
  11. Sarfati, J.D., 1997. Turtles can read magnetic maps. Return to text
  12. Poirier, J.H., 1997. The Magnificent Migrating Monarch. Creation 20(1):28–31. But monarchs only use the earth’s magnetic field to give them the general direction, while they rely on the sun’s position for most of their navigation. Return to text