Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Carebian Knight]

If nothing existed before, then where did the primordial atom come from?

That's the thing. There was no 'from' since there was no before. Try to understand. Time has a beginning. Shit 'begins'.

Sounds like something that was made up so that you couldn't be proven wrong.

[Carebian Knight]

circular reasoning never wins

Yet fossils being dated by what layer of rock they are found in, then the rock layer being dated by what fossils are in there made sense to everyone in the past. WTF!!!

How can you trust anything scientific after that?

[Carebian Knight]

Well, WidowMakers, maybe people don't want to explain the origins of life, the universe and everything to you because that would mean going off topic. This is after all the "Evolution vs. Creation"-thread. Not the "Tell me the whole history of the universe and why it is here"-thread.
Despite this there have been some posts describing the basic outlines of some theories regarding the very beginning of the universe. Maybe you should read them.

As for your questions, why should anyone bother to answer them when you have already stated what you will conclude from the answers, and fyi, your conclusion is flawed. (In any case, answering "It is wrong" to the questions you have posed would be tantamount to saying "it is wrong because it is wrong", circular reasoning never wins) I really don't see how answering "Doing X is wrong, because..." leads you to conclude that morals are static and unchangeable (i.e. non-evolving). Please, explain it in some more detail.


And if you want to behave like an asshole and ridicule your opponents, at least do it properly. I suggest you re-read what Frigidus wrote, pay attention, and then notice that he said that talking about evolution in a non-biological context is using the word 'evolution' metaphorically. You and he might be able to have a fruitful discussion if you clear up your terminology first.

Well first of all this is a creation vs evolution thread as you have said.

The evolution of the universe (stellar) or of a creature (biological) are bothimportant areas that we can discuss. Creation covers both areas. And this topic was never intended (or have it tried to make it) a biological only discussion.

If I am so wrong with pointing out issues with stellar evolution (which again is required for biological evolution to work) why does someone not point out the issues?

And second. Why has no one answered my question about morals? I have asked 4 questions. I have an opinion about what the implications are for specific answers. If I am wrong, then answer the questions and prove me wrong. Show we why my conclusion is flawed.

And I also don't particularly like how evolution is used metaphorically when i comes to the universe but literally when it comes to biology. There have been many times in this thread that evolution has been described as "CHANGE".

I am sorry if the words stellar evolution do not sit well with you. SO I will change them to stellar/planetary changing.

Please explain how the universe came from nothing and formed to be in the arrangement we see today making it possible for biological evolution.

I am not trying to be a pain or anything. I have opinions and am simpley responding to otheres questions or opinions.

Why is it so hard to answer my questions and then prove my opinions wrong?

Maybe because they can't prove it wrong

CONSPIRACY

[Carebian Knight]

The Romans, who were mainly Christians later in their existence, felt no qualms about slavery. They also had the Gladiatorial games, a step away from your aforementioned random killings. The idea of slavery being evil has only been culturally accepted (here in America at least, most other countries were a bit ahead of us) in the last 100-150 years. As you said, a war was fought (partially, I know it's more complicated) over it! So how can it be universally wrong when the Christian world spent the majority of it's life practicing it?

The Romans had a different form of slavery than we did. Most Roman slaves came from conquered peoples, something that was practiced throughout ancient times. Americans got their slaves by kidnapping Africans, that is wrong. I don't believe slavery itself is wrong, but it should only be allowed if the person owes you a debt, then once the debt is paid off, they are freed. I have no issue with that, however kidnapping someone or conquering someone to make them your slave is morally wrong to me.

[Snorri1234]

circular reasoning never wins

Yet fossils being dated by what layer of rock they are found in, then the rock layer being dated by what fossils are in there made sense to everyone in the past. WTF!!!

How can you trust anything scientific after that?

Dude, the half-time of radioactive isotopes isn't determined by the fossils. Radiometric dating is a very simple concept.

[Carebian Knight]

I'm not talking about radiometric dating, I'm talking of what was used before that. Which you and unriggable seem to disagree on.

You said that radiometric dating proved that layers were correct:

What was discovered after radiometric dating became known was that these techniques were pretty spot on.

But unriggable says they were proved wrong:

Layers, and many of these estimates were falsified by radiometric dating.

You two are only proving to me that some of the evolutionists here don't even know what they are talking about.

[Snorri1234]

I'm not talking about radiometric dating, I'm talking of what was used before that. Which you and unriggable seem to disagree on.

You said that radiometric dating proved that layers were correct:

What was discovered after radiometric dating became known was that these techniques were pretty spot on.

I meant that they were sometimes pretty correct. Obviously without a good method they made mistakes, which were corrected by radiometric dating.

At least that is what I've read.

[PLAYER57832]

I will address two of your intial questions, widow . Twice I tried to get into more detail, but "timed out".

To take one point -- you claim that if natural selection operated on dogs, you would still see something like dogs?

Just how to do get that assumption? The reality is just the opposite. Dogs. wolves and coyotes provide a fine example. All are relatively recent (in Evolutionary terms) relatives. They can still interbreed, but, in nature, will rarely do so, either because their behaviors are so different or they are just plain in different locations. They are considered different species, probably for the most part because we, as humans have historically viewed them as different. Biologically, they are "borderline" ... and there are some who might argue they should not actually be seperated. Now look at domestic dogs. Being artificially bred, we have "fast-forwarded" evolution. A great Dane and a chihahua are teh same species. Yet could a chihuahua mother give birth to a pup from a Great Dane father? I think not, at least without some help. They are, then, still the same species yet very close to becoming seperated. If this occured in the natural world, we would probably call them seperate species. Left "alone" they most likely would eventually lose the ability to breed together. Given even more time and it is quite possible that they will vary even greater until it becomes difficult perhaps, at first glance, to know they are decended from the same basic stock. (notice, I said "most likely". I did NOT say "for sure" .. "most likely" is all that is necessary to show another possibility, to show that your assumption of another possible result is wrong).

Interestingly, you pointed to bacteria in your first argument. Bacteria DO reproduce quickly enough that we can and DO see changed within our lifetimes. This is seen in the emergence of disease resistant bacteria, AND in the emergence of new bacteria strains. MORE IMPORTANTLY, the mere fact that one particular bacteria did not happen to change for a time in no way means that evolution and natural selection aren't "real". Things only change if they NEED to change. Small changes MAY occur without need, but large changed usually only occur in response to a direct need. Look at the horseshoe crab. It is unchanged from prehistoric times. It had no need to change.

Finally, these two points go a long way to show the problem with most of your arguments. You make leaps in assumption, dismiss possibilities and misunderstand/misstate basic principals.

The real truth is three fold.

1. Science almost never PROVES anything. What it does is DISPROVE the false. Scientific standards of proof are EXTREMELY hard. To be proved, you must take each and every possibility into account -- very , very difficult. Instead, scientist try to prove theories wrong. If a theory cannot be proven false, then it stands.

2. NO one can PROVE Evolution, at least until we are somehow able to go back and view what actually happened .. and even then there would be quesitons. You also cannot PROVE that God created the universe or that God even exist. Understand I fully believe in a way so strong I would say that that I KNOW in all but the scientific sense.

3. Again and again you decide that because something is unlikley or because you cannot conceive of another way, there IS no other way. No credible scientist would do that. There is almost ALWAYS another possibility.

Finally, the real truth is that to fully dispute your conclusions requires that you know more about the basic foundations of science than you do now. Sorry, but that is the truth. Science is a structure of proof upon proof, concept upon concept. It takes time to truly understand any of these ideas. It is far easier to just dismiss it all as false, when it takes real effort to understand.

The irony is that if folks like you would take the time to really study, you mght be able to make some real and valid contributions. Science needs individuals of conscience, individuals who do not accept things just because it is taught.

HOWEVER, you HAVE to start with truth. You have to start with fact and proof. You have to understand the theories you are trying to dispute. Right now, you are like my six year old trying to pick up a book on snakes and read it. He does not know the words, so he looks at the pictures. Some parts he gets correct, but some pretty big details, he misses.

YOu have a choice. You can go forward and dismiss the objections and objectors as more members in the "conspiracy against creationists" OR you can study, review and try to understand ..,. really understand studies based on proof and facts, not just ideas and thought.

One hint, most of your articles are old -- VERY old in scientific terms. The first, about bacteria, is over 30 years old. the next is 10. Do a full search and you will find many who have disputed these studies. Teh fact that these studies exist is not proof that they represent the truth, it is proof that scientists actively seek and welcome diverse ideas and challenges.

[Frigidus]

The Romans, who were mainly Christians later in their existence, felt no qualms about slavery. They also had the Gladiatorial games, a step away from your aforementioned random killings. The idea of slavery being evil has only been culturally accepted (here in America at least, most other countries were a bit ahead of us) in the last 100-150 years. As you said, a war was fought (partially, I know it's more complicated) over it! So how can it be universally wrong when the Christian world spent the majority of it's life practicing it?

The Romans had a different form of slavery than we did. Most Roman slaves came from conquered peoples, something that was practiced throughout ancient times. Americans got their slaves by kidnapping Africans, that is wrong. I don't believe slavery itself is wrong, but it should only be allowed if the person owes you a debt, then once the debt is paid off, they are freed. I have no issue with that, however kidnapping someone or conquering someone to make them your slave is morally wrong to me.

See, you're proving my point in a sense. Many people would disagree with you, saying that slavery is wrong all together. Many others would say that slavery of any form is fine. There is no truth in the matter, and different cultural roots will breed different moral systems.

[PLAYER57832]

The Romans, who were mainly Christians later in their existence, felt no qualms about slavery. They also had the Gladiatorial games, a step away from your aforementioned random killings. The idea of slavery being evil has only been culturally accepted (here in America at least, most other countries were a bit ahead of us) in the last 100-150 years. As you said, a war was fought (partially, I know it's more complicated) over it! So how can it be universally wrong when the Christian world spent the majority of it's life practicing it?

The Romans had a different form of slavery than we did. Most Roman slaves came from conquered peoples, something that was practiced throughout ancient times. Americans got their slaves by kidnapping Africans, that is wrong. I don't believe slavery itself is wrong, but it should only be allowed if the person owes you a debt, then once the debt is paid off, they are freed. I have no issue with that, however kidnapping someone or conquering someone to make them your slave is morally wrong to me.

See, you're proving my point in a sense. Many people would disagree with you, saying that slavery is wrong all together. Many others would say that slavery of any form is fine. There is no truth in the matter, and different cultural roots will breed different moral systems.

You both miss a point. Slavery is considered an advancement over the previous alternative -- just killing your opponent. And you have to take it in context of how people, in general were treated. At that time, many kings./leaders had almsot absolute control over "free" men. "Free" men had even greater control over women and their children. When the idea of "freedom" is pretty limited, the idea of slavery does not seem as bad.

You won't find many in today's world who consider slavery "fine". When they do, they compare it more to various other forms of employment. It is the absolute truth that in Roman society a slave often had more power, more wealth and even more "freedom" in a practical sense than many so-called "free" men of the day. In some ways, this was even more true for women. Understand, I do not justify it. Nor do I suggest it was all nice. I just say that the society as a whole was perhaps not so "nice" by today's standards.

[Frigidus]

You both miss a point. Slavery is considered an advancement over the previous alternative -- just killing your opponent. And you have to take it in context of how people, in general were treated. At that time, many kings./leaders had almsot absolute control over "free" men. "Free" men had even greater control over women and their children. When the idea of "freedom" is pretty limited, the idea of slavery does not seem as bad.

You won't find many in today's world who consider slavery "fine". When they do, they compare it more to various other forms of employment. It is the absolute truth that in Roman society a slave often had more power, more wealth and even more "freedom" in a practical sense than many so-called "free" men of the day. In some ways, this was even more true for women. Understand, I do not justify it. Nor do I suggest it was all nice. I just say that the society as a whole was perhaps not so "nice" by today's standards.

I wasn't really commenting on how free the slaves of the time were as much as I was demonstrating that morals are relative. As you said, enslaving a conquered people was, in a sense, letting them off the hook. There was no idea of slavery being immoral. Call it "savage" but that was how the Roman Empire worked. On your second note, I'll grant you that the heavy majority of people nowadays find slavery wrong, but it does still exist (lawfully or not). Hm...now that I think about it we're getting pretty far off topic, eh?

[Snorri1234]

The Romans, who were mainly Christians later in their existence, felt no qualms about slavery. They also had the Gladiatorial games, a step away from your aforementioned random killings. The idea of slavery being evil has only been culturally accepted (here in America at least, most other countries were a bit ahead of us) in the last 100-150 years. As you said, a war was fought (partially, I know it's more complicated) over it! So how can it be universally wrong when the Christian world spent the majority of it's life practicing it?

The Romans had a different form of slavery than we did. Most Roman slaves came from conquered peoples, something that was practiced throughout ancient times. Americans got their slaves by kidnapping Africans, that is wrong. I don't believe slavery itself is wrong, but it should only be allowed if the person owes you a debt, then once the debt is paid off, they are freed. I have no issue with that, however kidnapping someone or conquering someone to make them your slave is morally wrong to me.

See, I had a WTF????-moment here.
Carebian, are you seriously suggesting slavery is okay as long as you conquered the people you're enslaving?

Ofcourse, I don't fault the Romans for doing it, as it was a different time. But you're essentialy saying you wouldn't object if a bunch of soldiers came back with slaves from Iraq.

[Bavarian Raven]

slavery is okay as long as you conquered the people you're enslaving?

and they call us athiests messed up

[suggs]

actually, they call me Dave. But I assume you are being Frank.

[Chris7He]

The Romans, who were mainly Christians later in their existence, felt no qualms about slavery. They also had the Gladiatorial games, a step away from your aforementioned random killings. The idea of slavery being evil has only been culturally accepted (here in America at least, most other countries were a bit ahead of us) in the last 100-150 years. As you said, a war was fought (partially, I know it's more complicated) over it! So how can it be universally wrong when the Christian world spent the majority of it's life practicing it?

The Romans had a different form of slavery than we did. Most Roman slaves came from conquered peoples, something that was practiced throughout ancient times. Americans got their slaves by kidnapping Africans, that is wrong. I don't believe slavery itself is wrong, but it should only be allowed if the person owes you a debt, then once the debt is paid off, they are freed. I have no issue with that, however kidnapping someone or conquering someone to make them your slave is morally wrong to me.

So. Let's say man A owes man B $1.25 and man A cannot pay debt in any way and is disabled. Man B declares man A his slave under Cerebrian Knight's law. Man B commences sexual abuse on man A, who is loaned money and made someone elses' sex slave.

That's what white farmers did in the South during Reconstruction. They used the black peoples' debts to keep them tied to the land.

[Bavarian Raven]

will address two of your intial questions, widow . Twice I tried to get into more detail, but "timed out".

To take one point -- you claim that if natural selection operated on dogs, you would still see something like dogs?

Just how to do get that assumption? The reality is just the opposite. Dogs. wolves and coyotes provide a fine example. All are relatively recent (in Evolutionary terms) relatives. They can still interbreed, but, in nature, will rarely do so, either because their behaviors are so different or they are just plain in different locations. They are considered different species, probably for the most part because we, as humans have historically viewed them as different. Biologically, they are "borderline" ... and there are some who might argue they should not actually be seperated. Now look at domestic dogs. Being artificially bred, we have "fast-forwarded" evolution. A great Dane and a chihahua are teh same species. Yet could a chihuahua mother give birth to a pup from a Great Dane father? I think not, at least without some help. They are, then, still the same species yet very close to becoming seperated. If this occured in the natural world, we would probably call them seperate species. Left "alone" they most likely would eventually lose the ability to breed together. Given even more time and it is quite possible that they will vary even greater until it becomes difficult perhaps, at first glance, to know they are decended from the same basic stock. (notice, I said "most likely". I did NOT say "for sure" .. "most likely" is all that is necessary to show another possibility, to show that your assumption of another possible result is wrong).

Interestingly, you pointed to bacteria in your first argument. Bacteria DO reproduce quickly enough that we can and DO see changed within our lifetimes. This is seen in the emergence of disease resistant bacteria, AND in the emergence of new bacteria strains. MORE IMPORTANTLY, the mere fact that one particular bacteria did not happen to change for a time in no way means that evolution and natural selection aren't "real". Things only change if they NEED to change. Small changes MAY occur without need, but large changed usually only occur in response to a direct need. Look at the horseshoe crab. It is unchanged from prehistoric times. It had no need to change.

Finally, these two points go a long way to show the problem with most of your arguments. You make leaps in assumption, dismiss possibilities and misunderstand/misstate basic principals.

The real truth is three fold.

1. Science almost never PROVES anything. What it does is DISPROVE the false. Scientific standards of proof are EXTREMELY hard. To be proved, you must take each and every possibility into account -- very , very difficult. Instead, scientist try to prove theories wrong. If a theory cannot be proven false, then it stands.

2. NO one can PROVE Evolution, at least until we are somehow able to go back and view what actually happened .. and even then there would be quesitons. You also cannot PROVE that God created the universe or that God even exist. Understand I fully believe in a way so strong I would say that that I KNOW in all but the scientific sense.

3. Again and again you decide that because something is unlikley or because you cannot conceive of another way, there IS no other way. No credible scientist would do that. There is almost ALWAYS another possibility.

Finally, the real truth is that to fully dispute your conclusions requires that you know more about the basic foundations of science than you do now. Sorry, but that is the truth. Science is a structure of proof upon proof, concept upon concept. It takes time to truly understand any of these ideas. It is far easier to just dismiss it all as false, when it takes real effort to understand.

The irony is that if folks like you would take the time to really study, you mght be able to make some real and valid contributions. Science needs individuals of conscience, individuals who do not accept things just because it is taught.

HOWEVER, you HAVE to start with truth. You have to start with fact and proof. You have to understand the theories you are trying to dispute. Right now, you are like my six year old trying to pick up a book on snakes and read it. He does not know the words, so he looks at the pictures. Some parts he gets correct, but some pretty big details, he misses.

YOu have a choice. You can go forward and dismiss the objections and objectors as more members in the "conspiracy against creationists" OR you can study, review and try to understand ..,. really understand studies based on proof and facts, not just ideas and thought.

One hint, most of your articles are old -- VERY old in scientific terms. The first, about bacteria, is over 30 years old. the next is 10. Do a full search and you will find many who have disputed these studies. Teh fact that these studies exist is not proof that they represent the truth, it is proof that scientists actively seek and welcome diverse ideas and challenges.

well said...most of their evidence are from ancient sources that have been long since outdated...and most of them are so "one-sided" they refuse even to look at the other sides evidence...

[unriggable]

If nothing existed before, then where did the primordial atom come from?

That's the thing. There was no 'from' since there was no before. Try to understand. Time has a beginning. Shit 'begins'.

Sounds like something that was made up so that you couldn't be proven wrong.

Coming from the guy defending religion...

I literally cannot get this across to you. There. Was. No. Before. Since this atomic material was infinitely small it was zerodimensional, and time is a dimension so time did not exist until after the big bang.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_2.htm

If I were to nominate somebody to oppose backglass, that writer would be it. Of course it sounds stupid when you say it like that. And the writer implies that math is bullshit. When you get all the variables right, math will lead you directly to the answer. It did with the creation of the moon, and the big bang is confirmed by the same mathematics. Of course you fuckers seem to think that math doesn't prove anything, and that's your blindfold.

[Bavarian Raven]

I literally cannot get this across to you. There. Was. No. Before. Since this atomic material was infinitely small it was zerodimensional, and time is a dimension so time did not exist until after the big bang.

time has no beginning or end, so it is always been HERE and will always be HERE because it is nothing...

and if nothing existed before the bigbang then there could not have been a god either,,,think about it...

[unriggable]

You two are only proving to me that some of the evolutionists here don't even know what they are talking about.

This is coming from the guy who says math isn't to be trusted.

It doesn't matter what happened with evolution in the past. RIGHT NOW we know that these radiometric work, since there are alot that are currently being 'used' and they all come up with scarily similar results for the same material.

[Neoteny]

Widow, you wanted someone to explain enzyme/protein/DNA formation, so I will gladly do it. As a biology major, I despise chemistry, but it's stuff I need to know and I will pass it on... I will number your arguments for easy reading.

Argument #1: CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND THE LAW OF MASS ACTION
The Law of Mass Action would immediately neutralize the procedure (small compunds jining into larger ones) and ruin the outcome. This is because chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration

"It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."—*Richard E. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75.

We are told that amino acids miraculously formed themselves out of seawater. But the seawater needed to make the amino acids would prevent them from forming into protein, lipids, nucleic acids and polysaccharides! Even if some protein could possibly form, the law of mass action would immediately become operative upon it. The protein would hydrolyze with the abundant water and return back into the original amino acids! Those, in turn, would immediately break down into separate chemicals—and that would be the end of it.

"Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly than spontaneous synthesis . . [This fact is] the most stubborn problem that confronts us."—*George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, pp. 49-50.

The law of mass action would constitute a hindrance to protein formation in the sea as well as to the successful formation of other life-sustaining compounds, such as lipids, nucleic acids, and polysaccharides. If any could possibly form in water, they would not last long enough to do anything.

This law applies to chemical reactions which are reversible,—and thus to all life compounds. Such reactions proceed from reactant substances to compounds produced in the manner normally expected. But these reactions tend to reverse themselves more easily and quickly (*"Review of R. Shubert-Soldern’s Book, Mechanism and Vitalism," in Discovery, May 1962, p. 44).

Not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of amino acids had to miraculously make themselves out of raw seawater devoid of any life. But the amino acids would separate and break up immediately and not remain in existence long enough to figure out how to form themselves into the complex patterns of DNA and protein. The problem here is that, as soon as the chemical reaction that made the amino acids occurred, the excess water would have had to immediately be removed.

"Dehydration [condensation] reactions are thermodynamically forbidden in the presence of excess water."—*J. Keosian, The Origin of Life, p. 74.

Argument #2: CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND PRECIPITATES

Even if water loss could occur, enzyme inhibitors would neutralize the results. The problem here is that a powerfully concentrated combination of chemicalized "primitive water" would be needed to produce the materials of life,—but those very chemicals would inhibit and quickly destroy the chemical compounds and enzymes formed (David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107).

Argument #3: CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND OXYGEN
Another problem is the atmosphere. It is a well-known fact among biochemists that the chemicals of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air

Living plants and animals only have certain proportions of the 92 elements within their bodies. These elements are arranged in special chemical compounds. Chemists say they have been reduced. When the chemicals found in living beings are left in the open air, they decompose or, as the chemists say, they oxidize. (A similar process occurs when iron is left in a bucket of water; it rusts.)

In the presence of oxygen, these chemicals leave the reduced (or chemical combination) state and break down to individual chemicals again.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

Argument #4: PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS
Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed (diluted and ruined) the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water and self-destruct the protein!

There is more to a living organism than merely chemical compounds, proteins, and fatty acids.

There are also enzymes, which scientists in laboratories do not know how to produce.
Yet there are thousands of complicated, very different enzymes in a typical animal!
And all of them happened by chance

Argument #1: you don't state what the law of mass action is. The law of mass action states that the higher the concentrations of reacting substances are, the faster a reaction will take place. This part of the law is unimportant. The other half of the law has to do with equilibrium states, which includes mathematics from which dissociation of particles has a constant. Every substance has its own equilibrium constant. The key is that there is an equlibrium point between the number of dissociated particles and the number of reacted particles, and it is rarely, if ever, 0 reacted/all dissociated.

Next you assert that water will cause the dissolution of any products formed by the reactions we discuss (I love, by the way, how all your references are 20-40 years old, except for the creation science reference... and Scientific American isn't a peer-reviewed journal...) I won't cite references for this because, together, we can think this through logically. Not only does the equilibrium constant discussed above apply, but think of this: how much of the human body is made of water? Depending on who you ask, anywhere between 50-90%. We have water inside and outside all our cells. We will die without water. Why doesn't the water dissociate us into a pile of stinking (and holy) goo? Why don't all the fish in the ocean dissolve into nothing? Because water does not have that strong of a dissociative effect. Also, not all substances are easily dissolved in water. Have you ever tried to dissolve oil in water? Good luck. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence but I use oil to prove a point: there are many substances that do not dissolve in water and even if they do, water isn't such a dissociating agent that it happens immediately.

Where the hell are you getting that hundreds of thousands of amino acids had to form? You are aware that there are twenty standard amino acids, right? If you take an amine functional group and slap it onto an acid you have an amino acid. That doesn't mean it is necessary, or can even be used for life as we know it. Did you know that some amino acids dissolve in water and some don't? Did you also know that dissolving in water does not necessarily imply dissociation?

"Dehydration [condensation] reactions are thermodynamically forbidden in the presence of excess water."—*J. Keosian, The Origin of Life, p. 74.

Dehydration reactions aren't the only reactions that can occur. For example, here is an amino acid that is formed without removing any water.



In fact, the reaction actually takes in a proton (of which there are plenty in water). So, bam, argument one, gone.

Argument #2:

Even if water loss could occur, enzyme inhibitors would neutralize the results. The problem here is that a powerfully concentrated combination of chemicalized "primitive water" would be needed to produce the materials of life,—but those very chemicals would inhibit and quickly destroy the chemical compounds and enzymes formed (David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107).

What? What are these enzyme inhibitors and where are they coming from? And what enzymes are they inhibiting? Who said anything about enzymes? This is an argument? Please elaborate.

Argument #3: Again with the spontaneous breakdown. It is true that if you remove the oxygen from a decomposing rat, you will greatly slow down the decomposition. This is because the majority of the decomposition is being done by bacteria that need oxygen to survive. If you leave glucose (an organic solid) out on your table, it doesn't dissociate into a pile of carbon with all your oxygen and hydrogen floating around in the air (eventually bacteria and fungus will eat it, but it'll still be there a while). Again, common sense.

Argument #4: That sounds an awful lot like natural selection to me. If a substance gets hydrolyzed, then its constituent parts will continue reacting until it creates a form that is not easily hydrolyzed. Chemistry, huzzah.

"There are also enzymes, which scientists in laboratories do not know how to produce."

Scientists before the 1950s didn't know how to achieve nuclear fusion, even though it happens in the sun. Just because we can't do it now, doesn't mean we won't. If anti-science nuts weren't holding us back...

"Yet there are thousands of complicated, very different enzymes in a typical animal!
And all of them happened by chance."

Not chance, natural selection.

Hope you enjoyed my tl;dr post everyone!

[Snorri1234]

Yay for Neoteny.

[Carebian Knight]

You two are only proving to me that some of the evolutionists here don't even know what they are talking about.

This is coming from the guy who says math isn't to be trusted.

It doesn't matter what happened with evolution in the past. RIGHT NOW we know that these radiometric work, since there are alot that are currently being 'used' and they all come up with scarily similar results for the same material.

I never said math isn't to be trusted, I said that maybe an equation used for something can't be trusted. Never said math as a whole can't be trusted.

[Carebian Knight]

The Romans, who were mainly Christians later in their existence, felt no qualms about slavery. They also had the Gladiatorial games, a step away from your aforementioned random killings. The idea of slavery being evil has only been culturally accepted (here in America at least, most other countries were a bit ahead of us) in the last 100-150 years. As you said, a war was fought (partially, I know it's more complicated) over it! So how can it be universally wrong when the Christian world spent the majority of it's life practicing it?

The Romans had a different form of slavery than we did. Most Roman slaves came from conquered peoples, something that was practiced throughout ancient times. Americans got their slaves by kidnapping Africans, that is wrong. I don't believe slavery itself is wrong, but it should only be allowed if the person owes you a debt, then once the debt is paid off, they are freed. I have no issue with that, however kidnapping someone or conquering someone to make them your slave is morally wrong to me.

See, I had a WTF????-moment here.
Carebian, are you seriously suggesting slavery is okay as long as you conquered the people you're enslaving?

Ofcourse, I don't fault the Romans for doing it, as it was a different time. But you're essentialy saying you wouldn't object if a bunch of soldiers came back with slaves from Iraq.

Read my post:

kidnapping someone or conquering someone to make them your slave is morally wrong to me.

I said that conquering someone to make them a slave is morally wrong to me.

[Carebian Knight]

The Romans, who were mainly Christians later in their existence, felt no qualms about slavery. They also had the Gladiatorial games, a step away from your aforementioned random killings. The idea of slavery being evil has only been culturally accepted (here in America at least, most other countries were a bit ahead of us) in the last 100-150 years. As you said, a war was fought (partially, I know it's more complicated) over it! So how can it be universally wrong when the Christian world spent the majority of it's life practicing it?

The Romans had a different form of slavery than we did. Most Roman slaves came from conquered peoples, something that was practiced throughout ancient times. Americans got their slaves by kidnapping Africans, that is wrong. I don't believe slavery itself is wrong, but it should only be allowed if the person owes you a debt, then once the debt is paid off, they are freed. I have no issue with that, however kidnapping someone or conquering someone to make them your slave is morally wrong to me.

So. Let's say man A owes man B $1.25 and man A cannot pay debt in any way and is disabled. Man B declares man A his slave under Cerebrian Knight's law. Man B commences sexual abuse on man A, who is loaned money and made someone elses' sex slave.

That's what white farmers did in the South during Reconstruction. They used the black peoples' debts to keep them tied to the land.

There would be certain exceptions, for one $1.25 isn't enough to enslave a person. Sexual abuse wouldn't be considered payment, because that is illegal, why would he be loaned $1.25?

[Carebian Knight]

If nothing existed before, then where did the primordial atom come from?

That's the thing. There was no 'from' since there was no before. Try to understand. Time has a beginning. Shit 'begins'.

Sounds like something that was made up so that you couldn't be proven wrong.

Coming from the guy defending religion...

I literally cannot get this across to you. There. Was. No. Before. Since this atomic material was infinitely small it was zerodimensional, and time is a dimension so time did not exist until after the big bang.

How can something that is zerodimensional exist? That's basically going against science, from what I know there has to be at least 2 dimensions for something to exist.