AllDeaf.com - View Single Post

fredfam1 · 02-24-2008, 04:19 PM

[quote=owen06;924763]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredfam1

...That includes those who believe God used evolution to create the world. Which I do not. Cheifly because believing this will eventuallly lead you to the conclusion that evolution could have occured without God if you are intellectually honest. I don't bleieve any God that needs Evolution to create anything is worthy of worship. That would fall into the theory of Aliens seeding the planet.

As you stated, the above is your opinion. Which you are more than fully entitled to. My opinion is that God totally could have used evolution. We will have to agree to disagree here. Science does not disprove God's existence and in fact I believe shows us more of God's role in the universe than the bible.

I was hoping you would post the amino acid argument:
...
Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

Chirality can easily be explained via biochemical processes. Atoms have certain affinities for one another and when combined they have a tendency to arrange themselves in 3 dimensional shapes - this gives amino acids such as lysine, arginine, leucine etc., proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA their specific qualities. However, due to the inherent randomness in molecular movements, and the various combinations of molecular orbitals we can end up with chiral molecules. Chirality is the property of essentially "right handed vs. left handedness". What I mean by this is that your two hands look alike in structure and have the exact same properties/abilities however, you cannot lay your right hand on your left hand and have them match up when they are facing the same direction (think palm of one hand to the back of the other).

Indeed this is a problem. In fact, in the manufacturing of numerous drugs, the chemical processes used to join the molecules together results in the formation of a chiral molecule that is produced in equal proportions (enantiomers) of right or left handedness, and this is known as a racemic mixture. The problem is often that only one enantiomer is actually active in the patient and because these molecules have the same inherent structure, they also have the same inherent chemical properties, and as such we lack the ability to separate the active one from the inactive one. This is why you bought L-lysine which also, if it was synthetically produced, likely contained the R enantiomer. The L version is the biologically active one (not saying I have found science backing it up as an antiviral). However, amazingly, the proteins of our bodies are only formed in the L enantiomer but this is due to the ability of other proteins to take the R version, and rearrange it to the L version.

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

Unfortunately, because there is complexity in nature does not preclude our ability to eventually understand it. And as I have stated above, discoveries in chemistry have shown us the "mystery" that is chirality, how it forms, and how it is dealt with inside living organisms. It would appear that creationism, and not evolution, is relying on a believer's lack of understanding with regards to chemistry and biochemistry.

I am sure there are some scientists who believe in creation. However, this does not say they don't believe evolution could co-exist. And I haven't been able to find any publications from them stating explicitly that creationism is a more credible theory.

Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.
So you are saying that the argument this man gave is not a credible one against evolution? And if he doesn't believe in evolution, are you saying he just doesn't know what he believes in? Clearly if he holds a PHd in science and is trained in methods of investigation and writes an article showing that evolution can not be responsible for creating life. THEN he must believe in Creation! I will tell you why you are having a hard time finding papers that actually state Creation is more credible. It is because the scientist who says that point blank will loose his funding, his job, and will be ostrasized in the scientific community. (for example Robert Gentry lost his Federal funding when he pointed to proof that granite rock had to be formed instantaneously, not cooling over millions of years) and he clearly states that Creation is more credible. The world of science is not devoid of politics and good old boy tactics.