Originally posted by orfeo
Why you think chemistry contradicts creationism completely escapes me. I studied chemistry at university, and I certainly don't remember the age of the universe having the slightest relevance to my understanding of why transition metals behave the way they do. Hydrogen atoms don't behave differently depending on how old they are.

The reason for bringing in chemistry to the debate was, that I was thinking of the Carbon-14 dating process. But thinking of it now, I think you're right, it's not a part of the chemical field, but more within the physics field, but, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm glad that you were able to deduce my original meaning, which was, that Creationism clashes with a lot of scientific fields, and that people who professes to Creationism (and it's idea of the age of the world) are in contrast with a lot of scientific fields.

Originally posted by nickybutt
The reason for bringing in chemistry to the debate was, that I was thinking of the Carbon-14 dating process. But thinking of it now, I think you're right, it's not a part of the chemical field, but more within the physics field, but, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm glad that you were able to deduce my original meaning, which was, that Creat ...[text shortened]... ionism (and it's idea of the age of the world) are in contrast with a lot of scientific fields.

The cross discipline nature of evolution certainly allows room for chemistry. Especially at the crucial point where the building blocks of life are formed and life begins.