Chemical evolution doesn't happen...?

Question

I actually heard a creationist say this. He actually argued that without devine intervention, hydrogen cannot form more complex elements and that elements cannot form into more complex molecules. We have already proven that hydrogen atoms can form more complex elements through nucleur fusion, which is a process that has been observed in nature without any intelligent intervention. And to say that elements cannot form into more complex molecules is to show that one has never taken a basic chemistry course. What happens when put metal in water?????

Answer 1

Do you really expect more from them? You have to ignore a whole lot of science to be a creationist.

Answer 2

[I'm not sure what question you are asking, really.. so I'll just comment on what was presented..]

That is more of an argument put forth by those who jumped on the "Intelligent Design" (ID) bandwagon.. which many people feel is just another ploy to get around U.S. laws keeping religion out of government, such as public schools. (ID, as far as I know, is only "big" in the U.S.)

That aside.. The argument itself is flawed. The argument, as I understand it, implies that much of "natural selection", such as evolution and such, is not possible, because there's no chance that the building blocks of life could have come together on their own to create life. This, in turn, is "conclusive proof" that there had to be some kind of intelligent intervention (I won't say "divine", since the IDists will only argue they never claimed it was divine intelligence, redirecting the issue away from the issue itself.) The theories of evolution, how life began, etc, pretty much state that random chance is exactly how it first happened. And that is what the IDists seem to be attacking.

And that makes no sense to me. There's NO presumption that life began magically on a one-time random event, or even the first time. For all we know, the universe/all reality could have existed for billions and trillions of years, with many failed "random chances", before it struck the one that worked. Which is pretty much how natural selection works.. What doesn't work doesn't stick around; What works sticks around, evolves, improves, grows stronger.

The same could be true if there was an intelligence behind it.. If there were, how do we know it didn't try countless other failures before finding the one combo that worked?

Furthermore, unless that intelligence was divine, who or what created the "reality" upon which that single combo could exist, and all others fail? it would have had to work with the same "reality blueprints, mathematics, physics, etc" that everything else, including evolution, would have had to work with.. and would have had to stumble upon a working solution by random chance, same as evolution.

Unless the intelligence was divine, in which case, ID really is just another name for Creationism, since the divine intelligence would have had to create the laws, physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc, in order for it's "life design" to succeed. We're right back at square one.

But either way, it neither proves nor disproves either theory, does it? Yet, that seems to be one of the many issues that I keep seeing popping up as claiming to prove one side or the other. All-in-all, I think it's just a stupid argument that lacks any real thought, doesn't prove anything, and is founded completely on ignorance--Of both sides.

Answer 3

I have never heard anyone say that chemicals cannot react because they were a creationist. However, if you have a hydrogen atom and give it a billion years, it will remain a hydrogen atom not change into a copper atom. Perhaps that is what he meant.

Of more importance, I think, is the subject of Abiogenesis, or life springing from non-life. That is not possible for a variety of reasons, as outlined below.

Answer 4

Maybe so,but you still have to create life from nothing,and you will never do that.An operational science test in a classroom,lab,etc proves nothing.That's probably the last thing that went through Stanly Millers' mind right before he died.His failure.He was wrong,and so is everyone else.He spent his whole life trying to make life from nothing,and he failed.Yourself and no one else walking this earth can ever prove evolution to be true.Who made you believe that crap anyway?Your teacher?Whoopee?Another casualty of the American school system.How glorious.Can you not think for yourself?My apologies for being so condescending.I just don't understand how someone can believe that mess when there's nothing to prove it.The belief in evolution requires a materialistic answer.Nothing more or less.There's nothing there biologically,geologically,or chemically.Evolution is a religious belief system.It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.

Answer 5

The Sun builds Hydrogen into Helium all the time.

But hey its a creationist and they think that everything makes more sense by saying "Magic Man done it" Because that some how makes sense.

Answer 6

By Nature you mean the sun I take it, not to disagree with you at all, but if there is spontaneous nuclear fusion, or fission going on on Earth I want to know were.

Answer 7

It is clearly a stretch to call chemical processes evolution; that term should really be reserved for living things undergoing changes in speciation. As for biological evolution, it is now a proven fact. (Proof details are available on request; please provide an e-mail address.)

Answer 8

Sorry mate, but I think that you put too much faith in them (pun intended) for them to actually get it...if they did take a basic chemistry course, they probably slept through it.

Answer 9

Ignore the ignorant - it will save you a great deal of time.

As to what happens when you put metal in water, it depends on which metal, the temperature of the water, etc.

Answer 10

We have also reproduced the process in collider experiments for larger nuclei.