Posted on 03/10/2007 11:07:03 AM PST by balch3
Great, except that you can't run water-producing condensation reactions in an ocean. Le Chatelier's, and all that.
I didn't say scientists were never wrong.
I said, in the case of a conflict between a well established observation and a religious text.
I have yet to see a single instance where scientists and religious folk duked it out over something and the religious folk were shown to be right.
It's never, not once, happened.
As if there is no phase boundary with the atmosphere, like on the pebbles and sand on the primeval shores. Besides the thermodynamics, there is the kinetic of hydrolysis, as well.
Do you understand the difference between equillibrium and non-equillibrium conditions? The thermodynamics and kinetics involved? Le Chatelier's Principle applies only under equillibrium conditions, but it does not prohibit a condensation reaction in aqueous conditions, nor does it make kinetic predictions.
--Rashi (11th century)
Darn it, you beat me by less than 2 minutes :)
The spirit [vapors] does hover over the [sur]face of [fire]water, and could be distilled from it. At atmospheric pressure it forms an azeotropic 190-proof mixture. At about 30 mm pressure the azeotrop becomes more spiritual, as it shifts to 199 proof spirit.
The problem for you is that, under the natural (i.e. non-laboratory, and therefore non-controlled) circumstances posited by the "early earth amino acid to proteins" scenario, the system operates under equilibrium conditions. Hence, in this scenario, Le Chatelier's DOES prevent this condensation reaction from occurring. And yes, evolutionists have tried all kinds of arguments - directing clays, thermal vents, etc. - to gett around this, but none have shown any experimental promise. I haven't even addressed the kinetics of the system, for the simple fact that you actually have to have an appreciable reaction before kinetics have any importance. BTW, the Le Chatelier's argument is only one of many empirical arguments that doom the traditional evolutionist theories about the naturalistic formation of life in an early earth scenario. We've not even discussed the effects of hard UV on amino acids (no oxygen = no ozone), or the problems with the racemicity of the product AAs.
Therein lies the rub, however. Evolution is not a "well-established observation". Evolution rests on circumstantial evidences from which it is deduced as an explanation. Neither evolution nor creation are, by their very nature, subject to empirical, verifiable, repeatable experimentation. To the extent that generational variation has occurred, it has been within type, not between type. We've simply no experimental evidence that fish become frogs become lizards.
I have yet to see a single instance where scientists and religious folk duked it out over something and the religious folk were shown to be right. It's never, not once, happened.
False, I've seen it happen. Back in the early 1990s, the hard-core, literal 7-day creationists like Duane Gish and Gary Parker were routinely engaged on university campuses across the country to debate with evolutionist professors, usually but not always on the university's staff. The creationists would crush the evolutionists most of the time. It happened here at the university where I got my degree (i.e. empirical observation). It was after several rounds of this that the evolutionists began the "we won't debate them because that will just given them undeserved credibility" line.
> Therein lies the rub, however. Evolution is not a "well-
> established observation".
The guys in the article at the top of this thread "think" the world is "young" "because God said so".
They're deranged morons.
So are most of their fellow travelers.
> Edison, Einstein...
Edison thought the notion of a "soul" was fiction and that a personal God was the fevered imagining of an inadequate man.
Einstein was born a Jew, and to the extent that he wasn't an outright atheist believed in Spinoza's nameless, faceless "First Cause". He thought personal gods were ridiculous.
So if God didn't create the universe, who did?
I don't think the idea that God didn't create the universe counts as a well established observation.
That it didn't occur within the last 10-20,000 years and, that there wasn't a recent global flood certainly do, though.
"Thus I strongly suspect that this Kurt Wise is either an unbeliever [re theology] or an ignoramus [re science]. Maybe both."
"Kurt Wise holds a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University, where Stephen Jay Gould was his advisor. Dr. Wise is currently Assistant Professor of Science and director of an origins research program at Bryan College in Dayton Tennessee."
Bryan College (Mission Statement):
The basic purpose of Bryan College is to educate students to become servants of Christ to make a difference in today's world. The College seeks to assist in the personal growth and development of qualified students by providing an education based upon an integrated understanding of the Bible and the liberal arts.
In 2006, Dr Wise has changed school affiliations. He is currently teaches at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary!
Ignoramus in science? PhD from Harvard.
Unbeliever in theology?:Formerly a faculty member at devoutly Christian college. Currently on the faculty at the seminary of one of the most traditionalist Christian groups.
"Thus I strongly suspect that this Kurt Wise is either an unbeliever [re theology] or an ignoramus [re science]. Maybe both."
An allegation born out of ignorance and arrogant suppositions. Yep, GSlob must be an evo.
Mans' interpretation of God's Word is highly fallible, as has been observed repeatedly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.