Your conclusion on God's existence

[Jokerman]

You keep kicking against evolution, apparently expecting a "fullproof, watertight" gallery of evidence that we can whip out on a whim. I think this expectation stems from your religious background, that teaches one principle, one story, no questions asked.

That's exactly what it is. We're wasting our time debating logically and rationally with him. We should just say our book tells us evolution is true. That's the only thing he might respect, since it's how he comes to know truth.

So here goes:

I was taught from an early age to believe in evolution. As a young impressionable child I had to memorize every word of the Origin of Species, along with every other child my age for years and years. Every word in it is infallible. I also feel it in my heart to be true. There's millions of us and we're growing every day. Unless evolution is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. How can anyone have morals without evolution? I've seen and felt evolution’s presence in my life. You cannot argue against evolution unless you also first take it for granted. Arguing about evolution, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time.

I believe that evolution is the foundation of everything, and that it should be the primary focus of everyone in everything that they do. Skeptics and critics will try to turn the question of evolution aside with all sorts of questions and objections. However, few of these are really difficulties if you first consider the question of evolution. If evolution was real, and it is what it claims to be, many of the other questions are easily answered or become of little importance. The question which Darwin put forward, the question which Darwinists put forward, the question which every human heart needs to answer is "What will you do with evolution?" Darwin himself said, "He that understands and trusts in evolution has everlasting life." (Origin of Species pp 243). And, "it is the way, the truth and the life.”

"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this fossil is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by God alone."

No matter who you meet, no matter what their background or objections, you can tell them about evolution. I go from door to door. It is evolution that each one will answer to at the judgement. We should be trying to reach the conscience of the creationist with the truth of evolution, and be ready to be a fool for natural selection’s sake so that evolution gets the glory and not us.

It's easy to bring glory to ourselves by delving into religious questions and making our goal to be winning arguments instead of bringing the light of evolution to bear on the conscience.

The amazing fulfillment of Darwin’s prophecies. There are at least 322 prophecies in the Origin of Species. All were fulfilled by fossil evidence.

The longing of all people for perfection and eternal meaning speaks of a need to know about evolution. Observe people’s desires. Are they ever fully satisfied? Do they ever attain perfection and eternal meaning by their belief is God? Why not? Who implanted this deep-seated need for a perfect and eternal relationship? Nature did.

Evolution’s ability to inerrantly speak to the spiritual needs of all people throughout history regardless of age, culture, or education and its communication of the perfect answer for man’s sin by the gracious gift of Darwin testifies that it is the Truth. Do you find any error in its spiritual, practical, historical, scientific or prophetical truths, or any lack in its ability to speak truth to all cultures, ages and types of people? Why not? Who proclaimed such infallible and heart-renewing truths? Darwin did.

Do you believe now, Teck? I'm speaking your language.

(Teck's response will be "You're right, it is a faith. Now you're making sense.":sleepy: )

 

[TecK NeeX]

Yes I'm Perfectly satisfied with that Jokerman. May the force of Evolution and Natural Selection be with you my friend.

Shalom
Salam
Namaste
Peace

 

[TecK NeeX]

Plus, I dont see what my religious background has anything to do with this. I've merely spoke on behalf of many evolutionists. Id still think this theory is a joke to the science world even if I wasn't a man of faith. The same can pretty much be said about your stubborness and arrogance towards creationism, blinded by your belief in this mythical theory, you expect "fullproof, watertight gallery of evidence that we can whip out on a whim and prove creationism is a fact without a shadow of a doubt."

The more evidence we find the more the evidence points toward creationism. If you believe my religious background prevents me from being open minded towards this evidence and realize that they point toward evolution i can say the same about you and accuse you of the same thing of not realizing that they point towards creationism. Science is Evolutions greatest enemy not Creationism. If im blinded by my beliefs than you're no better. You laugh and dismiss Creationism, Religion, God's existence, Jesus as fairy tales than it's only normal for us to laugh and dismiss your even more fairy tailish beliefs as such and such. Suck it up

 

[Preach]

The same can pretty much be said about your stubborness and arrogance towards creationism

not at all

blinded by your belief in this mythical theory, you expect "fullproof, watertight gallery of evidence that we can whip out on a whim and prove creationism is a fact without a shadow of a doubt."

okay, so without saying they have found jesus' remains and it has been written in he bible (ever read lord of the rings?), can you present to me ONE SINGLE scientific evidence that God exists? of course not. therefore, the evolutionary theory is more plausible.

and here i feel like making an important point. you can say that everything had to start somewhere, everything had to come from somewhere. while that would also have to apply to god, you are using the lack of evidence to prove God, not evidence itself.

the 322 "prophecies" in darwin's book that have later been proved are 322 pieces of evidence that stand in favor of the evolutionary theory. as is all the fossils we have found later, what we know about gene pools and genes, and so forth. there is so much evidence, yet you pick out a few heavily debated subjects like transitional fossils, bees not having changed and a bunch of irrelevant shit, and use that to put reason behind your opinion. you are as stubborn as evolutionists but at least they don't believe in magic man.

the evolutionary theory sits as nicely in the grand scheme of things as jesus does in the bible.

 

[Jokerman]

The same can pretty much be said about your stubborness and arrogance towards creationism, blinded by your belief in this mythical theory, you expect "fullproof, watertight gallery of evidence that we can whip out on a whim and prove creationism is a fact without a shadow of a doubt."

No, we expect any evidence or even a good, logical argument in order to take it seriously. Natural explanations are superior to the wild, untestable supernatural speculations that originate from the boundless imaginations of creationists.

Whenever science finds natural explanations and a gap in our knowledge closes, creationists simply remold their plastic Bible or Quran interpretations to claim that their book had the answers all along, or that the obviously ridiculous verses are just non-literal "poetry.":laugh:

Plus, I dont see what my religious background has anything to do with this. I've merely spoke on behalf of many evolutionists. Id still think this theory is a joke to the science world even if I wasn't a man of faith.

I doubt it. If you had a good mind, you would see these creationist straw-man arguments for what they are. And if we had weaker minds, we’d probably have faith in some Creator and be fooled by these arguments too. If I thought you had actually studied the subject as written by reputable writers on it and then found it to be lacking, I would consider your arguments, as I do the few writers who actually have good points to make on it. But you've clearly got most of your info from creationist websites that mix real science sources with creationist pseudo-science sources to provide anyone with only a weak scientific background enough selective information to make it seem like the entire scientific community is composed of incompetents whose sole intention is to debunk religious beliefs. Having a weak scientific background plus a religious agenda, you naturally fell for that view. To anyone not moderately skilled in analyzing references on which conclusions are based, combined with a limited scientific understanding of the many different topics discussed, these arguments deceivingly present what could pass as a somewhat sound and logical case against evolution. But these arguments are simply a case study of the creationist redefinition of science and invalid argument techniques. It's all a sophisticated smoke screen designed to attack the theory of evolution. It's not about science, it's about faith masquerading as science. You've even fooled yourself.

 

[Duke]

Jokerman speaks the truth. I had (gullibly) thought that with rock hard logic he would at least see that his arguments against evolution are flawed. I didn't expect him to renounce his faith but a little rationality wasn't asking much, was it?


Oh well, back on the Ignore list he goes.

 

[TecK NeeX]

No, we expect any evidence or even a good, logical argument in order to take it seriously. Natural explanations are superior to the wild, untestable supernatural speculations that originate from the boundless imaginations of creationists.

You again talk about logic as if there is anything logical about the Millions perhaps billions of species coming from a single cell that popped out of nowhere. Great logic that is indeed. In that case you shouldnt even take yourself seriously. Does it sounds logical or reasonable to you when not even a single chance formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species on earth were formed?

You again talk about natural explanations when the theory itself is an impossibility of the Natural World. A theory that fails at the very first step, A theory unable to explain even the formation of a single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.

Whenever science finds natural explanations and a gap in our knowledge closes, creationists simply remold their plastic Bible or Quran interpretations to claim that their book had the answers all along.

Dont associate the word science with Evolution. You materialists can only console yourselves by dreaming that science will somehow resolve all these dilemmas for you. science will never verify such an entirely groundless and illogical claim, no matter how many years pass by.. On the contrary, as science progresses it only makes the nonsense of evolutionists' claims clearer and plainer.

I doubt it. If you had a good mind, you would see these creationist straw-man arguments for what they are. And if we had weaker minds, we’d probably have faith in some Creator and be fooled by these arguments too.

You're doing the typical bullshit as before. If you had a good mind, you would see these evolutionist straw-man arguments for what they are. And if we had weaker minds, we’d probably have faith in some unintelligent force acting as a God creating and giving life and be fooled by these arguments too

But you've clearly got most of your info from creationist websites that mix real science sources with creationist pseudo-science sources to provide anyone with only a weak scientific background enough selective information to make it seem like the entire scientific community is composed of incompetents whose sole intention is to debunk religious beliefs.

I got most if not all of my info from evolutionists and science articles. I have given you these individuals names, when they said it and where. I have given you the names of these articles and the date when they were written and published. If it's true that I "mixed it with creation science", than it would have been a walk in the park for you to track these "unaltered" versions of the information and presented them for me., yet you faild to do so. Indeed when the debate is lost such accusations are only expected from losers.

Having a weak scientific background plus a religious agenda, you naturally fell for that view.

Oh spare me your desperate and unwanted cries.

But these arguments are simply a case study of the creationist redefinition of science and invalid argument techniques. It's all a sophisticated smoke screen designed to attack the theory of evolution. It's not about science, it's about faith masquerading as science. You've even fooled yourself.

For the love of God and Natural Selection. I have not once quoted a single creationist. Ive litteraly used most if not all of my information from and gathered by evolutionists and unbiased/fair scientists. Unlike the jokes of science who fake and fabricate fossils and experiments to further their deceiving agenda you've used.

 

[TecK NeeX]

not at all

okay, so without saying they have found jesus' remains and it has been written in he bible (ever read lord of the rings?), can you present to me ONE SINGLE scientific evidence that God exists? of course not. therefore, the evolutionary theory is more plausible.

and here i feel like making an important point. you can say that everything had to start somewhere, everything had to come from somewhere. while that would also have to apply to god, you are using the lack of evidence to prove God, not evidence itself.

the 322 "prophecies" in darwin's book that have later been proved are 322 pieces of evidence that stand in favor of the evolutionary theory. as is all the fossils we have found later, what we know about gene pools and genes, and so forth. there is so much evidence, yet you pick out a few heavily debated subjects like transitional fossils, bees not having changed and a bunch of irrelevant shit, and use that to put reason behind your opinion. you are as stubborn as evolutionists but at least they don't believe in magic man.
the evolutionary theory sits as nicely in the grand scheme of things as jesus does in the bible.

LOL at the 322 prophecies in darwins book that have "later been proved"

And LOL at the bold part

OK?

 

[Jokerman]

You again talk about logic as if there is anything logical about the Millions perhaps billions of species coming from a single cell that popped out of nowhere. Does it sounds logical or reasonable to you when not even a single chance formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species on earth were formed?

As you have been informed many times, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. But your need to constantly bring it into the argument is more proof that your sole agenda is religious. Because to you if one believes in evolution he must also believe in a materialistic origin for life, and you can't have that, so you reject the whole thing. And once again you're arguing against your own ideas of evolution. Because evolution is not a theory of "chance." It's beyond obvious that if it were a theory of chance, it wouldn't work. No Darwinist thinks life evolves by chance or luck.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Ok Jokerman, It's not a theory of Chance, It's a theory of Coincidence, happy?

 

[Story]

It came through a lot of different things for me. I always believed there was a God, be it one who passive and doesnt play a part in the universe he created until after our death, or one who is involved. As i went to college and began studying biology and evolution, and reading reports on how scientists say, had the world as we know it started in 10 different places, only 1 could evolve into what it is, makes me think there had to be someoen, some being who guided it. Sort of a controlled, linear evolution. Everything had to begin somewhere, and someone had to put the gases in place to begin what is known as our universe, and our world.

from then on I was convinced, there is a god


as for the topic of evolution, lets not begin this debate again. we had one in his forum before and it gets out of hand because people are hard headed, especially bible thumpers who dont want to accept the fact here is way too much hard, factual evidence to suggest that evolution is very real. so please, let us not begin this argument.

But I do want to say something in regards to tekneek:

The basis which makes up life is not all that complicated, since. there are a limited number of elements inside your body. Most of what makes us up is carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur, withsome nitrogen and phosphorous. There are some very minute amounts of other elements in there, but for the most part all we are is just a a big pile of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.

Most of the atmosphere is made up of those very same elements, so all that neede to be done was discover how the hell it came together to form life well, that part was taken care of by a man name Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago. He put methane, or natural gas, ammonia, hydrogen gas, and water vapor into a beaker. This mixture of gases is what a primordial enviroment most likely looked like. Then he ran an electfical current through ti to simulate lightining, and since early on the world was a hot stormy mess there would have been tons of lightning, and you know what he got? A brown gooey substance that actually turned out to be amino acids which make up proteins

Now whats even more remarkable is the amounts he had were reasonable when compared to what youd find if you checked out organic matter in a meteroite.

Thats where your "single chance" proteins most likely came from, and your amino acids, the rest of which im not getting into. But one more thing I would like to mentio to you. The leading idea is these amino acids and proteins got trapped in an oil bubble of sorts in the primordia world, and the right combination got everything rolling....


Now, you talk about how these single cells came together to form bigger organisms, thats not how it works. People dont understand evolution it seems. If you have a single celled organism, like chlamydamonas, which is a single celled organism, it divides by budding. Should a problem or mutation occur during cytokinesis, you end up with a 2 celled, or sometimes 3 celled organism. Now, if they live in an enviroment where this is beneficial to survival, they will reproduce, and now you have more 2 celled organisms. THen over time these mutations accumulate, and thats where your multicelled organisms come from.


go look up the endosymbiosis theory...


Even further there ARE transitional fossils, and here I will list some for you, some I have seen with my own eyes..

From Fish to Amphibians--

Osteolepis
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Panderichthys
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega

Amphibians to Amniotes or early reptiles if you prefer..
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris

Here are some that show transitions for primitive jawless fish to bony fish:

Acanthodians
Palaeoniscoids
Oreochima

I could sit here all day and list them, but the point is transitional fossils have been found, so that argumetn holds water no longer.

Finally before I go I have one question--

If there is no such thing as evolution, why is it there species are present now, that did not exist 30 million year ago..where did they come from then if evolution is not real?


pz

 

[TecK NeeX]

LOL @ Stanley Miller's Expirement and these fancy named sooo old, so proven wrong transitional fossils.. Yet another victim of Lies


You tell great stories Story

 

[Story]

LOL @ Stanley Miller's Expirement and these fancy named sooo old, so proven wrong transitional fossils.. Yet another victim of Lies


You tell great stories Story

And that is the response of a bible thumper.

1. stanley millers experiment is scientific FACT. Suck it up and deal with it. Dont typle LOL, just take your foot out of your mouth and accept the fact you were wrong.


2. Transitional fossils proven wrong? By who? By some obselete scientist who has as much weight behind his name as Clonaid? I got news for you teckneek these transitional fossils are real and taught and shown to graduates students now in 2006. Let me ask you, do you know more than the head evolutionary professor at the University of Michigan and some of the Leading Professors at Harvard and CMU and others around the country? No,I didnt think so, its funny, these are the very people I have spoken to, have been taught by. If these have been proven wrong the science community would not still teach this to students. The bottom line is you base your opinion off some random piece of information you find on the internet, one scientist out of 200000. Go to a REAL educational insititution, and prepare to have yourself made to look like a fool.


Not only that, you totally ignored my question.., re read my previous post and answer it for me please, or dont you have an answer....,


Teck its time you grow up. There is much false information on the internet, I will no longer have this discussion with someone who is so uneducated on the topic they cant refute my points, except for saying O THATS BEEN PROVEN WRONG when in fact it hasnt , and DO NOT go find some random article on the internet by some bogus site. You want to show its proven wrong find me a PUBLISHED artcle, with a link to the hard copy, and not only that I want more than one source. These transitional fossils are shown and taught to students at every major university in the world. I came here looking for a calm educated discussion, I refuted your points about "random proteins", showing you a clear experiment that has been duplicated in labs, and you reply with LOL

Every time i see you come up with a rebuttle you link or copy and paste some weak information from some random creationist website on google, that does not follow real science. Dont do that, go to a university somewhere, find a lead researcher in these areas, look for their work, PUBLISHED work, and find ONE that says this is all lies. and you must find more than one, you gotta find a few that agree, and when you do, let me know.



The bottom line is you want, so go ahead, type LOL and hold onto your laughable story about a talking snake, and people in some garden. The fact of the matter is that myth was busted long ago, the world is older than the bible says it is, there are thousands of transitional fossils on record, and stanley miller, well, his research has been duplicated 1000's of times.


Go get educated on the topic Tek, and until then, dont direct any comments at me, I dont have time for ignorant 10 year olds.


Pz.

 

[Duke]

And that is the response of a bible thumper.

1. stanley millers experiment is scientific FACT. Suck it up and deal with it. Dont typle LOL, just take your foot out of your mouth and accept the fact you were wrong.


2. Transitional fossils proven wrong? By who? By some obselete scientist who has as much weight behind his name as Clonaid? I got news for you teckneek these transitional fossils are real and taught and shown to graduates students now in 2006. Let me ask you, do you know more than the head evolutionary professor at the University of Michigan and some of the Leading Professors at Harvard and CMU and others around the country? No,I didnt think so, its funny, these are the very people I have spoken to, have been taught by. If these have been proven wrong the science community would not still teach this to students. The bottom line is you base your opinion off some random piece of information you find on the internet, one scientist out of 200000. Go to a REAL educational insititution, and prepare to have yourself made to look like a fool.


Not only that, you totally ignored my question.., re read my previous post and answer it for me please, or dont you have an answer....,


Teck its time you grow up. There is much false information on the internet, I will no longer have this discussion with someone who is so uneducated on the topic they cant refute my points, except for saying O THATS BEEN PROVEN WRONG when in fact it hasnt , and DO NOT go find some random article on the internet by some bogus site. You want to show its proven wrong find me a PUBLISHED artcle, with a link to the hard copy, and not only that I want more than one source. These transitional fossils are shown and taught to students at every major university in the world. I came here looking for a calm educated discussion, I refuted your points about "random proteins", showing you a clear experiment that has been duplicated in labs, and you reply with LOL

Every time i see you come up with a rebuttle you link or copy and paste some weak information from some random creationist website on google, that does not follow real science. Dont do that, go to a university somewhere, find a lead researcher in these areas, look for their work, PUBLISHED work, and find ONE that says this is all lies. and you must find more than one, you gotta find a few that agree, and when you do, let me know.



The bottom line is you want, so go ahead, type LOL and hold onto your laughable story about a talking snake, and people in some garden. The fact of the matter is that myth was busted long ago, the world is older than the bible says it is, there are thousands of transitional fossils on record, and stanley miller, well, his research has been duplicated 1000's of times.


Go get educated on the topic Tek, and until then, dont direct any comments at me, I dont have time for ignorant 10 year olds.


Pz.

Kewl, a smart believer. Finally someone who understands that believing in a God and taking evolution seriously aren't mutually exclusive.

And don't mind TecK, he has a small problem in regards to understanding the principle of logic.


Oh, and actually Teck, Miller's experiment isn't that heavily disputed as you think (and hope so). It didn't recreate the exact conditions of ancient Earth of course, nor does it stand as waterproof evidence (which, again, you seem to expect 100% fullproof every time). What it did, however, is show that by various reactions, amino acids could form out of a mixture of materials. This is siginificant information, of course, which you choose to ignore and "refute" (I've yet to discover a smidget of clear reasoning in your posts) it because it lacks a sign that says "100% sure everything worked this way". It's an experiment, cockwipe. Not the encylopedia on the origin of life.

 

[Story]

Kewl, a smart believer. Finally someone who understands that believing in a God and taking evolution seriously aren't mutually exclusive.

And don't mind TecK, he has a small problem in regards to understanding the principle of logic.


Oh, and actually Teck, Miller's experiment isn't that heavily disputed as you think (and hope so). It didn't recreate the exact conditions of ancient Earth of course, nor does it stand as waterproof evidence (which, again, you seem to expect 100% fullproof every time). What it did, however, is show that by various reactions, amino acids could form out of a mixture of materials. This is siginificant information, of course, which you choose to ignore and "refute" (I've yet to discover a smidget of clear reasoning in your posts) it because it lacks a sign that says "100% sure everything worked this way". It's an experiment, cockwipe. Not the encylopedia on the origin of life.

Thank you Duke, intelligent responses are always welcome.

As you can see, never once did I say, God does not exist, infact i said the opposite, that even though I firmly am aware of the evidence and research supporting evolution, the bottom line is that it all began somewhere. Even if it all began from explosive gases, someone or some being had to put the gases there. Perhaps that supernatural being guided the evolutionary process. So everything isnt as the bible told, so what? Much of the old testament is figurative, such as the story of Jonah in the belly of the whale. Do you really believe someone lived inside the belly of a whale? Or the story of methusela---a man who was nearly 900 years old

Never did I attack the religious aspect but Tek is in such a state of confusion in light of the facts brought against him the only rebuttle he has is to arrogantly and in an uneducated manner attack evolution and site the passages of obsure scientists with a religious agenda and he pulls his information off creationism websites. The fact all you can do is yell, scream, type LOL and roll your eyes and try to talk bad about evolution is because you realise you are wrong.

We arent saying God doesnt exist my friend, you need to read between the lines and pay better attention. Dont be afraid to open your mind Tek.

 

[TecK NeeX]

And that is the response of a bible thumper.

1. stanley millers experiment is scientific FACT. Suck it up and deal with it. Dont typle LOL, just take your foot out of your mouth and accept the fact you were wrong.


2. Transitional fossils proven wrong? By who? By some obselete scientist who has as much weight behind his name as Clonaid? I got news for you teckneek these transitional fossils are real and taught and shown to graduates students now in 2006. Let me ask you, do you know more than the head evolutionary professor at the University of Michigan and some of the Leading Professors at Harvard and CMU and others around the country? No,I didnt think so, its funny, these are the very people I have spoken to, have been taught by. If these have been proven wrong the science community would not still teach this to students. The bottom line is you base your opinion off some random piece of information you find on the internet, one scientist out of 200000. Go to a REAL educational insititution, and prepare to have yourself made to look like a fool.


Not only that, you totally ignored my question.., re read my previous post and answer it for me please, or dont you have an answer....,


Teck its time you grow up. There is much false information on the internet, I will no longer have this discussion with someone who is so uneducated on the topic they cant refute my points, except for saying O THATS BEEN PROVEN WRONG when in fact it hasnt , and DO NOT go find some random article on the internet by some bogus site. You want to show its proven wrong find me a PUBLISHED artcle, with a link to the hard copy, and not only that I want more than one source. These transitional fossils are shown and taught to students at every major university in the world. I came here looking for a calm educated discussion, I refuted your points about "random proteins", showing you a clear experiment that has been duplicated in labs, and you reply with LOL

Every time i see you come up with a rebuttle you link or copy and paste some weak information from some random creationist website on google, that does not follow real science. Dont do that, go to a university somewhere, find a lead researcher in these areas, look for their work, PUBLISHED work, and find ONE that says this is all lies. and you must find more than one, you gotta find a few that agree, and when you do, let me know.



The bottom line is you want, so go ahead, type LOL and hold onto your laughable story about a talking snake, and people in some garden. The fact of the matter is that myth was busted long ago, the world is older than the bible says it is, there are thousands of transitional fossils on record, and stanley miller, well, his research has been duplicated 1000's of times.


Go get educated on the topic Tek, and until then, dont direct any comments at me, I dont have time for ignorant 10 year olds.


Pz.

I think ill go on a copy and paste spree from my older posts. I dont mind educating another brainwashed individual


Why would you even bring his experiments into this discussion when they've been fully rejected by 99% of scientists? Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists

Let me first start by a quote from Klause Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1998), 348.

"More than 45 years of experimentation including Millers own experiment on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia."

So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to create any amino acid.

Again in 2003: Chemist Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.

However, American scientists J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapor, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.

Thats not all, In 1993 Scientists discovered that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact was overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old. Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment

So to sum everything up and ask why his experiments were tottaly disregarded, it's simple

Scientists now believe that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.


I will repeat there is no possible way for life to emerge from an primordial atmosphere consisting of Carbon Dioxide and Nitorgen. PERIOD.

But wait in March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the following comments appear

When scientists try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.

I also have read that even Stanley Miller himself confessed that his experiments were rigged in a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Here try and comprehend this Story.



Let me be a little more specific on why Millers expirement is invalid

Here is what what science tells us today.

Problem #1

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: He used methane, ammonia, and water vapour in the experiment.

REAL CONDITIONS: Primitive earth contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen instead of methane and ammonia

WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID: Ferris and Chen from the USA repeated the experiment with the gases that existed at that time. Not even one amino acid was obtained

Problem #2

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: He assumed oxygen to be non-existent in the primitive atmosphere.

REAL CONDITIONS: Findings show that there was a huge amount of free oxygen in the primitive atmosphere

WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID? With such an amount of free oxygen available, the amino acids would have broken down, even if they could have been formed.

Problem #3

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: There was a special mechanism set up to synthesize the amino acids in the experiment. This mechanism, called the "Cold Trap", isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed and preserved them

REAL CONDITIONS: It was impossible for these kinds of mechanisms to have existed in nature. Under natural conditions, amino acids are exposed to all kinds of external destructive factors.

WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID?: If the mechanism known as the "Cold Trap" had not existed, the spark source and other chemicals released during the experiment would have destroyed the amino acids

Now can you tell me how I'm twisting these Real facts?

Whats the whole fuss about Millers expirement anyway? Even if amino acids had formed, it is impossible for these simple organic molecules to give rise to extremely complex structures such as proteins by chance and produce a living cells.

Even mankind today is unable to reproduce such structures in laboratories using the most advanced technology and atmospheres fit for life. how do we expect life to have emerged by chance? you can call me stubborn and narrowminded all you want but that is beyond anything you have called me.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Kewl, a smart believer. Finally someone who understands that believing in a God and taking evolution seriously aren't mutually exclusive.

And don't mind TecK, he has a small problem in regards to understanding the principle of logic.


Oh, and actually Teck, Miller's experiment isn't that heavily disputed as you think (and hope so). It didn't recreate the exact conditions of ancient Earth of course, nor does it stand as waterproof evidence (which, again, you seem to expect 100% fullproof every time). What it did, however, is show that by various reactions, amino acids could form out of a mixture of materials. This is siginificant information, of course, which you choose to ignore and "refute" (I've yet to discover a smidget of clear reasoning in your posts) it because it lacks a sign that says "100% sure everything worked this way". It's an experiment, cockwipe. Not the encylopedia on the origin of life.

What part of these new findings that show there was a huge amount of free oxygen in the primitive atmosphere and with such an amount of free oxygen available, the amino acids would have broken down, even if they could have been formed dont you understand?

It's like i keep telling you it's impossible to mix water with oil but you keep repeating that "at one point" they did.

 

[TecK NeeX]

And that is the response of a bible thumper.

And that is the responce of a science fiction thumper

stanley millers experiment is scientific FACT. Suck it up and deal with it. Dont typle LOL, just take your foot out of your mouth and accept the fact you were wrong.

I can't believe how much this guy is brainwashed! Calling stanley millers espirement FACT? WTF?

the world is older than the bible says it is,

No shit?

there are thousands of transitional fossils on record,

There is not one!!.

and stanley miller, well, his research has been duplicated 1000's of times.

How did you get to be so full of shit? After stanley millers exposure, NOT ONCE DID ANYONE TRY TO RECREATE LIFE. IF THERE ARE 1000's show me just ONE other experiment. why would any want to embarrass themselves the way Miller did?

Go get educated on the topic Tek, and until then, dont direct any comments at me, I dont have time for ignorant 10 year olds.

OH man this is beyond funny and into a whole new realm of comedy. telling me to get educated?

 

[TecK NeeX]

Im still wondering tho. should there be transitional fossils or not accoridng to evolutionary theory? LOL cause one person says transitional fossils are a misconception, The other says there should be none, and this guy i dont know what dream world he popped out of said there are thousands. Why flip flop

Is that all you got story? Imaginary fossils and stanley millers expirement? give me a break!. I have every right to LOL and LMAO at the evidence of your religion