I was personally discussing evolution vs. creationism from a biological perspective. All you've stated is that creationism is wrong by the definition of science and it seems like you're now trying to bring theoretical physics into the argument as well? I'm by no means a thoeritical physicist, but I'd venture to say that most debates regarding creation and evolution will deal with issues from the biological and geological sciences, not theoretical physics. I'm sure you could find some way to bring it in, but if you've ever seen debates between creation scientists and evolutionists, the topic is rarely broached. The meat is in the biology, such as in the experiment that ND linked to. As you stated, it's tough to respond to these issues on a message board, but I'd just say that that citrate experiment has been discussed by various creation scientists, and it's an interesting read. Again, it comes down to definitions and an understanding of biology. The linked article is VERY MISLEADING. It makes it seem like these cells gaining the ability to metabolize citrate is this dramatic new event. It almost seems to imply that the entire metabolic pathway for citrate metabolism evolved in this particular cell line. The reality is, however, E. coli CAN metabolize citrate; they have all the necessary cellular machinery to do so. Apparently under oxic conditions, they cannot transport citrate into the cell. So all they had to do was find a way to get citrate into the cell under oxic conditions, and they could metabolize it. Basically a transport issue. That's a lot different that evolving an entirely new pathway of citrate metabolism, which this article misleadingly implies. So apparently 1 cell line after 30,000 generations gains this ability...and that's macroevolution? And do we even know what the change was that led to the ability? Perhaps a slight alteration of an existing transport protein? I don't see that mentioned in the article.
And as far as the comment about a rudimentary understanding of theoretical physics, you're right-- I'm a physician, but I have a background in evolutionary biology as well...and that's what I'm discussing here. I'm guessing your knowledge of biology is about as rudimentary as my knowledge of physics. But I appreciate the link on the Big bang and will check it out.
You asked where all this matter comes from, and I provided a link that you could read that might answer some of those questions. We can discuss biology if you prefer although I'm not a biologist. Or a physician even, but I'll try to keep up.
As to e.coli metabolizing citrate, I think that you need to re-examine your viewpoint. You say that creating a new metabolic pathway is one thing, whereas transporting citrate across cellular membranes is another. That's certainly true. But for e.coli to gain the ability to transfer citrate across its cellular membranes is by no means the simple event you suggest it is. Mediated transport is by no means trivial and requires complex mechanics involving highly specific permeases. You suggest that perhaps a small change to an existing permease could be responsible. Let's assume that is true. It would be a textbook case of an epimutation and microevolution, and I don't think you'd disagree with that.
In your own line of work, as a physician, you see microevolution happen all the time. You are, no doubt, aware of the alarming rise of drug-resistant bacteria and how they are fast becoming a major concern for physicians and health authorities. That is evolution and natural selection at work.
I suspect that you are not opposed to the theory of evolution per se, but have objections when it comes to macro- vs. micro-evolution. But you know full well that macro-evolution doesn't mean, boom, out of the blue, a monkey evolves into a human. It's a painstakingly long process that works across hundreds of thousands of years...
So, do you have any specific misgivings about the theory of evolution that you would like to bring up? I wouldn't mind discussing it, even though I'm not a biologist.
