[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 10 KB, 200x284, Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4233642 No.4233642 [Reply] [Original]

here did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from—carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.? They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other. For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)? Therefore almost all compounds had to have been created as compounds. When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang? When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included? When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?

>> No.4233644

>evolutionists

>> No.4233650

http://www.drdino.com/creationist-challenge/

Well, sci?

whats wrong, you science faggots too stupid to disprove it?

>> No.4233657
File: 32 KB, 220x1066, whos awesome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4233657

It's actually an excellent question.

My only objection is that it's not a scientific one. Our current definitions of "life" and "matter" are made entirely out of convenience, so that we can actually accomplish things with the information we are provided.

That's not to say that the information is "true", but that it "works". We use our definitions because we have a job we want to do and it gets the job done, regardless of whether it's the best way to do it. After all, both an axe AND a chainsaw will chop a tree down, right?

I don't think you're trolling or crazy, OP. I actually love the questions you're asking. But I have no authority to actually provide you the answers you're looking for. If anything, I thank you for providing me with new thoughts to ponder.

Fuck what other people think. I like this thread.

>> No.4233666

>>4233650
I'd take it seriously if it didn't say
>Creationists
If it only trying to propose objections, I'd love it. But its using those objections as an excuse to fit his own agenda. It's too biased for me to actually enjoy reading.

>> No.4233670
File: 44 KB, 500x500, whatthefuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4233670

>They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other.

>> No.4233671

>>4233657
>>4233650
>>4233644
>>4233642
samefag

>> No.4233680

>>4233671
Guy from >>4233657 here.

No. I object to creationism entirely. But I do love to see scientific theories criticized and being asked questions I don't have immediate answers to just because it makes me all the more curious and eager to search for answers.

I'm stupid. I admit it. I'm trying to fix that. Threads like this do me the favor of pointing my ignorance out to me. That's why I like this thread.

>> No.4233683

well it wasn't always this way there were predesors that slowly lost favor and new ideas that had to get proven first. Original computers were hand powered

>> No.4233708
File: 27 KB, 500x333, 1325847526524.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4233708

>>4233650
>>4233650
>>4233650
>Who invented gravity?
>Misleading textbooks
>Too many questions and no answers
>Life from non-life
>Fossils disprove evolution
>Truth or dare

>> No.4233721

>elements rarely react with each other

Yeah, because most of it did that IMMEDIATELY UPON COMING INTO CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER billions of years ago and now there's little left that hasn't.

>> No.4233871

>>2012

>believing mendeleevianism

fucking godless heathens