Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

Bob

You just do not get it do you?

I have patiently explained in great detatil why these two problems are not problems at all.

For the chiral compounds, I have given you reference after reference of various ways to make non-racemic mixtures from the base chemicals. Once there are not racemic mixtures, your problem goes away. The primary method I have given you has been through the use of catalysts. Now, these have not been anything exotic. They have been such things as clay, borax and calcite. I have documented these items very well. I have provided multiple references. I have put everything into my own words such that you do not have to wade through the complexities of a formal paper. Yet you ignore all the science and continue to make the same assertions over and over without even trying to deal with the things that I post in response.

Same thing with the entropy stuff. I have gone over with you in dozens of posts now the truth of entropy. I have shown you that this is thermodynamics. "Thermo" is a root meaning heat which right off tells us the the kind of disorder meant by entropy is related to the use and conversion of energy and not the macro sort of disorder that laymen think of. But I have this problem, people who understand entropy tend to explain it to those that do not in terms of the disorder that laymen are actually familar with. So you have this endless supply of quotes, one in particular that you latch onto, where scientists are relating entropy using a general concept of disorder. No amount of educating you in thermodynamics seems to be able to shake you from this mistake. SoI go with your non-scientifi definition. I then point out how in the very quote that you keep using, that Asimov tells us how to overcome the universal trend towards increasing entropy. That local decreases are possible through work. I also went through a long and drawn out derivation and explanation that shows you that the work that lead to local decreases can be both thermodynamically favorable and spontaneous. Yet, you ignore that. In the end, I have asked you many times over what exactly it is that entropy prevents from happening. You silence on the question is defening. Since you are starting a new thread, I will give you one more chance. Please tell the court what step, any step, in the evolution of man from a single celled organism is prevented by entropy and how. Please do not forget to show your work and your references.

I really hope that if you are going to try and show that all of modern science is "junk" that you have better evidence that what you provided so far for these two subjects. BTW, to show the contrast between real science and real "junk" science, it may require that I post a few things about YEC. I hope that is not too far off topic.

 

The problem YE creationists have in rejecting evolution, is that every part of science is tied to every other part.

So, rejecting evolution ends up rejecting biochemistry (as Bob has just done), geology, physics, chemistry, genetics, biology, etc.

 

Since Bob started the thread asserting things about entropy, let's catch up with the discussion. A few things that I have posted in the past. Just trying to explain thermo.
-------------------------------
Let's look at what entropy is. Heat is considered a very poor form of energy as far as its ability to do work. Let's compare it to potential energy. If I take a 100 lb weight and lift it in the air, it has potential energy. With a rope and a pully, I could lift a weight nearly equal to the original 100 lb weight to the same height. THis is work and I can get nearly 100% of the potential energy recovered as work.

Now, if I take that same amount of energy, use it to heat water, and then try and recover that energy to do work. I will be able to recover only a small percentage of the energy stored as heat. Heat is a poor medium for energy. Some of the heat energy will be converted to a form of energy that cannot be recovered. This is known as entropy. The energy basically increases the disorder of the molecules of the system.

We can measure the change in entropy during a process. I will not bore you with the formula, but it is inversely proportional to temperature. What this means is the cycles that operate at higher temperatures operate more efficiently. For instance, in a power plant, you want to generate steam that is at as high a temperature as possible to get the most efficient generation of electricity.
--------------------------------
I give you the actual statement of the second law of thermodynamics.

"No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

from Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, Smith and Van Ness, 4th Edition, 1987
--------------------------------
If you look at the name you should see that thermodynamics is the description of how heat or energy (thermo-) flows or is transferred (-dynamic). Much of what we know about thermo was developed in parallel with the steam engine.

The short answer is that no, thermodynamics is not in doubt. Thermodynamics defines how just about everything you can think of functions. That it has been designated a "Law" in science indicates that it is well established indeed.

Now, having said that, it is also statistical in nature. There was an experiment two years ago where a scientists showed in an experiment that the entropy of tiny, plastic balls in water could decrease for short periods of time spontaneously. This was not a violation of entropy. It was because of the statistical nature, small short violations are possible. It is like chance.
-------------------------------
Anyhow, let me show you why my appeal to Gibbs is more than just entertaining. I am glad you went ahead and brought up the form where the cahnge in G is equal to -RT ln K because it forms part of my case.

I am trying to keep this from turning into a thermo class, so I'll try and keep it simple. I introduces the formula G = H - TS. Now let's go through those terms. G is gibbs energy, sometimes called free energy. Here is what you need to know. Things which are thermodynamically favorable, things which will happen spontaneously, decrease G for whatever we are talking about. When G cannot decrease any further, things are at equilibrium. H is enthalpy, but just think of it as energy. T is temperature. S is entropy.

The first thing to notice is that entropy is not the only factor in deciding what will happen. You will see that there is a subtraction sign in front of the term containing entropy. So any process in which the entropy of the system increases will tend to decrease G and therefore be favorable. You will see that S is multiplied by temperature. Take from this that processes are very sensitive to temperature when it comes to what will actually happen.

But notice that H out there. If H is negative, then S can also be negative and the process can still be favorable. H being negative simply implies that the process gives off energy, that is that it is endothermic. So if H is negative, then the system can actually decrease its entropy and the process still be favored.

Let me give a classic example. This is straight out of a thermo textbook. Consider water. When it freezes, the entropy of the water goes down becasue the molecules are put into a crystaline structure. But, freezing gives up energy, we call it latent heat. So the process is spontaneous at the right conditions. Entropy does not always have to increase for a system. One more important concept. I said temperture matters. Well here it is easy to see. Water will not spontaneously melt below 32 F nor will it spontaneously freeze above 32 F. The temperature term is coming into play.

Now for the part Bob contributed. Ignore all the terms but K. This is known as the equlibrium constant. Earlier I pointed out that equilibrium and G are related so you shown have some idea of the importance of this second equation. The key point is that thing come to an equilibrium and do not go to completion. If I mix a bunch of things together and let them react, I generally will not get a homogeneous result. I'll get a whole bunch of different things in equilibrium.

If you put the two together you will now see why local decreases in entropy are allowed and can even be favored and processes are actually much more messy than most people appreciate. Even if Bob could show that the things he says are unlikely, a case he has yet to make and I doubt that he can, the concept of equilibrium shows that even unlikely things happen frequently.

 

We will also reviw a few things about chiral compounds.

-------------------
Did you know that under certain conditions, chemical reactions that yield amino acids and other organic compounds no longer produce racemic yields?

First example. Organic molecules from space tend to have an abundance of left handed isomers. Why? Well it has been found that circularly polarized light will tend to push reactions to favor the left handed variety of the organic isomer. The products need not be racemic.

But there is a far more important effect to be seen. Catalyst. There are a number of possible pathways. Let's examine a few, shall we.

Please take a look at the following paper.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109082709/HTMLSTART

If you read it, you will find that amino acids themselves can catalyze the formation of more lefthanded amino acids. An amino acid acts as a catalyst to produce a enantiomeric excess of an isomer. As this happens, the reaction is in effect making more of the catalyst. It leads to an autoinductive process which becomes autocatalytic.

You might want to look up the following papers

Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber. 2004 Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts Science Vol 303, Issue 5661, 1151, 20 February 2004

This one shows how the lefthanded amino acids autocatalyze the formation of the right handed sugars found
in DNA and RNA.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

THis paper shows how borate will catalyze the formation of right handed sugars, also.

Which leads into my other cataylst. Minerals.

As shown by the above paper, minerals that have catalytic properties can also lead to an enantiomeric excess of a particular isomer.

You should now see that racemic mixtures need not be hypothesized. Circularly polarized light, organic catalysts and inorganic catalysts can all lead to reactions that favor one isomer. So your claims that lab experiments always lead to a racemic mixture are false. Even better,the organic catalyst make more of themselves giving higher and higher yields.
-------------------------------------
I have more to add. I previously gave you a reference to the following.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.

If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.

But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.

So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.

In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.

So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.
---------------------------------
Your assertion is that amino acids are formed in racemized mixtures and therefore proteins could not be formed that were using solely one isomer. Yet I have given you references that show you how catalyst can result in an enantioselective reaction. Here is another. "Physical and Chemical Rationalization for Asymmetric Amplification in Autocatalytic Reactions," Angew. Chemie, in press (with F.G. Buono and H. Iwamura). So, if catalyst can give us reactions that favor a given isomer, then you no longer have a racemic mixture. YOur problem goes away.
---------------------------------
I think I have already shown you why your supposed problems are not problems. YOu say "In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system." Now, what I have shown you is that we can make all right handed ribose sugars that can then be polymerized into RNA all of the appropriate isomer. That sounds pretty close to the mark to me. Further, I have shown that these RNA strands can perform all of the processes needed for simple life such as storing genetic information and catalyzing reactions. Now you see, here is where you get into trouble. I have shown you repeatedly that catalyst are capable of making one isomer. I have shown you that RNA can act as a catalyst and still does in extant life. I think you already know about RNA's role in making proteins. Put it all together and you have RNA catalyzing the correct amino acids and then putting it together into working proteins. What? You do not take my word for it? Well...

Bailey, JM 1998 “RNA-directed amino acid homochirality” FASEB Journal 12:503-507

Remember how we talked about the surfaces of borax and clays acting as catalyst. Well they found that RNA makes the left handed proteins even from a mixture of amino acids when on such a surface. SO that gives us three possible cases. The catalysts make the left handed amino acids. The catalyst makes the right handed ribose which then makes RNA which then serves as a catalyst for the left handed amino acids and puts them into proteins. Or RNA on a catalyst makes proteins using only lefthanded amino acids from a mix of amino acids.

How about one more catalyst to throw in the mix? This time another very common material: calcite.

Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490

You might want to study up on the general concepts of that one. How catalyst can arrange molecules in specific ways on their surfaces such that two things can happen. Either reactants that would normally make a racemic mixture can come together in such a way that only one isomer will be made. Or, if you have a randon mix of isomers, that one one will fit on the surface in the right way for a reaction to take place and therefore you can selectively pick out one isomer from a mix.

 

Thanks for the science lesson, UTEOTW. Very enlightening.

By the way, is "left-handed" when referring to sterioisomers the same as saying the "S enantiomer"? In my organic chemistry class, we always referred to molecules as having the S configuration at a stereocenter if the three higher-priority atoms, viewed with the fourth and lowest priority atom going to the back, went counter-clockwise in order of priority. Is this the same as "left-handed"?

 

Now, to begin on some of the junk science of YEC.

YECers must always claim that all of the human ancestors were fully modern humans or that they were fully non-human apes. The entertainment value comes in looking about by looking at how different young earthers draw that line at different places and at looking at how physcially different the specimens can be that they will claim are actually modern humans. All (at least I do not of any who do not) YECers will claim that Neanderthals were fully modern humans. Now this ignores basic physiology but this does not seem to bother them.

But I found a paper [Ovchinnikov, I. V., Gotherstrom, A., Romanova, G. P., Kharitonov, V. M., Liden, K., GoodwinW. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404, 490 (2000).] on DNA testing of Neanderthal remains. The paper talks about tests of a sample DNA from a Neanderthal from the Caucasus mountains of Russia and comparisons of that DNA to that of the first Neanderthal specimen found, the Feldhofer, and to that of modern humans. I will provide a link to and quote from an article written about the paper.

"But the Feldhofer Neanderthal DNA seems to be distinct from the DNA of any modern human, irrespective of racial or geographical origin. The Caucasus Neanderthal DNA now confirms this: it is closer to the Feldhofer DNA than to any modern human... But the Caucasus DNA and the Feldhofer DNA are quite distinct, having a 3.48% difference in sequence. This is comparable to differences between humans of different ethnic or geographic origins, and is not surprising given that the Feldhofer and Caucausus individuals lived 2,500 kilometres and tens of thousands of years apart."

So these two Neanderthal samples have differences in DNA between them in line with the variation found within modern humans but their DNA is far outside the variation actually found within truely modern humans. Therefore, these were not modern humans. And this agrees with the data from the physiology of Neanderthals and humans and it agrees with the different kinds of artifacts found with remains of Neanderthals and humans.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/000330/000330-8.html

YECers typically try and say that Neanderthals were just diseased humans. Rickets is usually the disease of choice. I just would like to see actual evidence that rickets will cause the skull of someone to gain prominent brow ridges, a very low and sloping forehead, a flat and low cranial vault instead of a dome, an occipital bulge, and an overall longer and wider skull.

It's just junk science.

 

Brett

I do not have my organic chemistry book right here in front of me. It is at work. I cannot remember right off the top of my head the naming rules. As you did, we also used "S" and "R" when naming. I have recently run across a lot of folks instead using "L" (left) and "D" (right) to refer to the stereoisomers. This kind of thing tends to be the type that I do not commit to memory because I can look it up. In my engineering classes, all the tests were open book, so it was more important to me to learn the "hows" and "whys" behind everything so that I understood it well. The formulas and names, that can be looked up in a hurry. But if you do not understand the basics, you're in trouble.

Sorry.

 

Here's a good page on amino acids and chirality, as well as some information on why L-forms might be more prevalent in nature.

http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/aachiral.html

BTW:
Neandertal DNA shows that they were quite different than we are. However, I would be interested in seeing Cro-magnon DNA results; they are, after all, anatomically identical to us, and I wonder if genetic drift might not account for the differences. If so, then we would see considerable differences in Cro-magnons as well.

 

YECers like to say that there are no beneficial mutations, that all mutations result in a decrease in "information" whatever that is. Here is an example of YEC junk science. There is a small group of people living in Italy with a mutation of a protein called apolipoprotein AI. Now i presented this as an example of a benficial mutation here http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2637/4.html#000046 . "Franceschini G, et al. (1980) "A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family." J Clin Invest. 66, 892-900 The abstract can be read at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430351&dopt=Abstract "

The response was that "The mutated gene doesn't do it's intended function very well anymore, but one effect of the mutation is that it now acts as an antioxident (because of the cysteine) which is good for keeping the arteries from hardening. Up to 70% of the original cholesterol fighting capability of the gene is hindered, but the reaming 30% still try to perform their function. One part that is left is the targeting information - so the gene is able to perform it's function as an antioxidant rather that it's intended functionality. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred. You can read the AiG description (which I have borrowed from) here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp " from here http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2637/4.html#000052 .

Now at the time I did not challenge the statement. I wish I had looked into the matter better. As it turns out, AIG was basing the claims on inaccurate press releases instead of the actual papers themselves. In actuality, the mutant form of the protein stimulates MORE effective removal of cholesterol in addition to its benefits as an anti-oxident. Only in YEC literature is more effective removal considered a loss of 70% of the original function.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10587455&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9125178&dopt=Abstract

 

While we are talking about YEC denying new information, here are three paragraphs on specific cases of new "information" along with a bunch of abstracts on similar cases all through the one method of duplication and mutation of an existing gene. I tacked on a few beneficial mutations there at the end.

Let's take a look at serine proteases. These proteins cut peptide bonds in other proteins. SOme are secreted by the digestive system to break up proteins to aid in digestion. Some are proteins involved in blood clotting (you might be famialar with thrombin). Some are involved in the complement cascade of the immune system. Now if you look at the sequence of amino acids in all of these various proteins, you will see that they are quite similar. You have very good circumstantial evidence that this whole family of genes is the result of repeated duplications of an original gene and the evolution of new functions from the varieties produced by mutation.

Another good family of related genes to look into in the hemoglobin / myoglobin family. These are oxygen carrying molecules.The evidence is that an original oxygen carrying gene duplicated early in evolution. One duplicate has since duplicated additional times, mutated, and become the myoglobins that carry oxygen withing muscle tissues. The other becamce hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. Hemoglobin is further split into two families, the alpha and beta. All of these involve a cluster or family of related genes. Many of these genes are related to development where specific genes are expressed at different points in the life cycle.

Development is controlled in part by a family of genes called homeobox genes. They first have the odd trait that they contain a section of exactly 180 nucleotides called, well, a homeobox. There is great simularity between these selector genes indicating that they were the result of gene duplication and mutation. Another case of evolution making new use of something that prexisted when developing a new trait. The similarity of some genes of this family across great ranges of species is also a good piece of evidence for the common descent of all life on earth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=7242661&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=6456024&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8765308&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=92130261&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9098062&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=90212054&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=84172188&dopt=Citation

http://www.americanscientist.org/amsci/articles/99articles/Hardison.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8794877&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9060395&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=96275651&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=1688138&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8056788&dopt=Citation

There is a mutation found in a particular ethnic group in Africa. From the pattern in which the mutation has spread, it is believed to have happened about 1000 years ago. There is a substitution in a single nucleotide of the gene that makes hemoglobin, the oxygen carrying molecule in the blood, that changes which amino acid is inserted at that spot. The new form is known as hemoglobin C. People with this gene ara about 14 times less likely to die from malaria. Before anyone asks, this is a different mutation than the one that causes sickle cell anemia. Here is an abstract. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11001883&dopt=Abstract

There is a gene, CKR5, in which a mutant version appears in some people of European ancestry. This mutated gene makes it more difficult or impossible for HIV to infect the persons cells, depending on which type of mutation the individual has.

Here is another abstract to a mutation in a plant that offers increased disease resistance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14576290&dopt=Abstract

Francis, J. E., and P. E. Hansche, 1972. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics 70: 59-73.

Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel, 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.

Boraas, M. E., 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 64: 1102.

Lin, E. C. C., and T. T. Wu, 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 135-164) Plenum, New York.

Hartley, B. S., 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 23-54) Plenum, New York.

"Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984.

 

Here is another good creationist "proof."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp

Now the good Dr. Snelling claims that he found a piece of wood in a Triassic era sandstone and had it dated. The Triassic was roughly 200 million years ago. But it C14 dated to about 33000 years old. Obviously this means C14 dating is flawed, right?

Nope. What it means is that Snelling took an iron concretion and presented it for dating. Sandstones tend to be porous and water can flow through them and deposit minerals in the sandstone. Iron concretions are one type of deposit that can be formed and they are known to geologists to give incorrect dates because they are not organic in nature and due to the flowing water are likely contaminated.

The head of the C14 dating group at Geochron Labs, where Snelling had the sample sent for analysis, told Snelling that the sample was not wood but likely an iron concretion. Snelling said to date it anyway. He also still reported the sample as wood and claims that this shows that dating is flawed. He will not submit his work to peer review nor will he allow others to inspect the sample.

This is the junk that passes for science in YEC.

 

UTE, have you happened to have read Impossible Theology?
http://www.parable.com/parable/item_0954392213.htm
Gina

 

Not "impossible"; more likely, uninformed or maybe just reluctant. Here's an example:

We can tell that from the text itself. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. And yet he eats and lives on for many years. God was speaking of a spiritual death,not a literal one. We know this, because it is absurd to say that God told Adam something that was not true.

Adam was never immortal. God himself observes this fact, and expressed concern that Adam might become so:

Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The author of the site seems to have made a few adjustments in Scripture to suit himself.

 

Brett,

R and S refer to the ordering groups attached to the central atom - this is the Cahn Ingold Prelog system. This has nothing to do with rotation of light.

 

In an answer to Bob Ryan's question...

UTEOTW has already given all the facts!

The answer in short is NO evolution does not rely on junk science. This is simply an accusation levelled by those who don't know science and who have already made up their minds before doing any reading!

Darwinian evolution has some problems for sure - and it really cannot be proven or disproven. It is the product of a lost person's mind, given only facts and science and no knowledge of God.

But the accusations that evolutionary science is all a farce and has all been debunked are in themselves quite untrue, whether we want them to be or not.

 

One of the most damaging arguments to evolution is the concept of information.

READ THIS CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO KNOWN MECHANISM BY WHICH MATTER CAN GIVE RISE TO INFORMATION OR CODE SYSTEMS. That is to say, there is no way for information to arise on it's own without an originator. A code cannot be recieved unless it was sent. Information comes from greater information.

This applies to the coding of DNA.

No where in nature do we see physical evolution in process - DNA gaining information. ALL the so called 'examples' (such as anti-body resistant germs, pesticide resistent insects, etc) can be shown to be the result of a decrease of information.

 

There are no evidences which prove the earth is millions or billions of years old that can be proven. There is just as much evidence to suggest teh earth is 6000 years old.

For example, for a long time, many have supposed that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form. However, science has recently observed canyons hundreds of feet deep forming in less than a week. Also, if you look at the top of the Canyon is is eroded by wind and elements. It is not level or smooth. Yet, underneth the surface we see layer after layer of uniform smooth layers with no evidence of erosion on each layer. Moreover, layering similar to that of the Canyons can be duplicated in underwater lab experiments.

 

One of the primary contributors to the fallicy of millions of years on earth is radiometric dating. However, all radiometric dating is based on assumptions. There is no dating method that exists that does not use assumptions to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, the dates cannot betrusted. The extent of the usefullness of radiometric dating is in determining similar types of rocks, but certainly there is no way to verify or trust the dates from these methods.

For example, Dr. Steve Austin collected samples of rock known to have formed at Mt. St. Helens during an erruption of a few decades ago (1980). This rock was brought to one of the most credible and trusted radiometric dating centers. The dating center was told that the Rock was 'young rock'. The rock was given the ages of 350,000 to 2,800,000 years. Rock that was formed in 1980 was given an age of almost 3 million years!! Um... it was a litte off.

Some of these centers advertise that they are not equipted to date rocks younger than a million years or so. If all rocks are 6000 years old as YEC predict, then any result by that radiometric dating method are going to be wrong by default. Evoltionists are quick to jump in and say "but the ruler is too big". Yes - I agree. However, you can apply that statement to all radiometric dating methods. They assume millions of years and indeed the scale is far to large to be accurate or find the truth.... that's the point of the experiment.

You see, geologists all have assumptions (usually based on what kind of fossils are found in the area) of the age of the rock. They then get out the ruler that suits them and measure away. It's no wonder, then, that their conclusions always seem to follow their presuppositions.

 

Here are the links to radiometric dating discussed here in the past.
Radiometric dating part 1

Part Two