Your conclusion on God's existence
- Thread starter Chronic
- Start date
Chronic said:
Could you elaborate on that?
When you became old enough to think for yourself did you try to come to your own conclusion? Did you question your beliefs? Did you want to question your own beliefs?
Do you think it was good that you were raised to believe in God? Would you have prefered to be exposed to God when you were old enough to think for yourself?
I think everyone that believes in God has questioned His existance before. Of course I have questioned and still do have questions because I'd really like to know how and why He chooses whatever path for each and every person on Earth.
Yeah my choice of words about it all being my opinion is prolly a little unclear but yes I believe that everything I've been taught is true. I was just stating that it was my opinion to hopefully deter alot arguements.
I wouldn't even pretend like I can answer all your questions because there's a whole lot that I don't understand but I can tell you what I believe myself. Yes I think it's fair for God to judge those who let Satan influence them because it's lack of faith in God that allows them to be influenced. Babies who die at birth are automatically entered into Heaven because they are still pure and uninfluenced.
There are so many differences in what people believe in according to what religion they are. Like take Heaven and Hell for instance, some believe that you go straight to either one at death then others believe in limbo where you go until Judgement Day when everyone will be judged at the same time and sent to either Heaven or Hell. I'm not really sure how I believe on that one.
But you're right, if God doesn't exist, there won't be a Judgement Day and everything will just go on forever. But I believe that He does exist and there will come a day and time when everyone will be judged by the hand of God and will either live beautifully in Heaven or horribly in Hell.
If you want, I can give you my brother's email address and he can prolly answer alot of your questions as he is studying to be a minister and has taken numerous courses over the last 3 or 4 years. Anytime I have a question that just won't get outta my head, I call him or email him and he usually has an answer for me. And he's a great guy, not one of those holier than thou types. He has been to the deepest depths of sin and climbed out to become an amazing person. But if you do email him, he'll prolly ask you just as many questions as you ask him lol so be prepared.
When you became old enough to think for yourself did you try to come to your own conclusion? Did you question your beliefs? Did you want to question your own beliefs?
Do you think it was good that you were raised to believe in God? Would you have prefered to be exposed to God when you were old enough to think for yourself?
Luv4Pac4Ever said:
God allows the suffering because it's all part of His great plan. God doesn't make us do evil things, Satan does. Satan was God's right hand man til he decided he wanted to take over and was cast into Hell. It isn't God's voice that you hear that tells you to kill someone or makes you so angry that you hurt someone, that's all Satan.
I don't think anyone thinks that God makes us do evil things, they just don't understand how He could allow them to happen.
How can everything be a part of His great plan when there's an outside influence (Satan) or are Satan's actions part of his great plan as well?
And would you say it's fair for God to judge people who have been influenced by Satan?
Wouldn't you say that people believe in God because it's easier for some them to believe the good stuff (that God exists and everything is happens for a reason) over the bad stuff (that God doesn't exist and that bad things simply happen)?
I have absolutely no idea whether or not God exists so you could say my believe isn't there, yet Satan can't "make me do whatever he wants".
Interesting choice of words. Kind of unclear whether you actually agree with it or if you're just hoping that it's true.
Well if God doesn't exist we won't find out
Speaking of Judgement Day, how will anyone that died before they even got a chance to do good or bad be judged? Babies that died at birth?
I don't think anyone thinks that God makes us do evil things, they just don't understand how He could allow them to happen.
How can everything be a part of His great plan when there's an outside influence (Satan) or are Satan's actions part of his great plan as well?
And would you say it's fair for God to judge people who have been influenced by Satan?
Wouldn't you say that people believe in God because it's easier for some them to believe the good stuff (that God exists and everything is happens for a reason) over the bad stuff (that God doesn't exist and that bad things simply happen)?
I have absolutely no idea whether or not God exists so you could say my believe isn't there, yet Satan can't "make me do whatever he wants".
Interesting choice of words. Kind of unclear whether you actually agree with it or if you're just hoping that it's true.
Well if God doesn't exist we won't find out
Speaking of Judgement Day, how will anyone that died before they even got a chance to do good or bad be judged? Babies that died at birth?
I think everyone that believes in God has questioned His existance before. Of course I have questioned and still do have questions because I'd really like to know how and why He chooses whatever path for each and every person on Earth.
Yeah my choice of words about it all being my opinion is prolly a little unclear but yes I believe that everything I've been taught is true. I was just stating that it was my opinion to hopefully deter alot arguements.
I wouldn't even pretend like I can answer all your questions because there's a whole lot that I don't understand but I can tell you what I believe myself. Yes I think it's fair for God to judge those who let Satan influence them because it's lack of faith in God that allows them to be influenced. Babies who die at birth are automatically entered into Heaven because they are still pure and uninfluenced.
There are so many differences in what people believe in according to what religion they are. Like take Heaven and Hell for instance, some believe that you go straight to either one at death then others believe in limbo where you go until Judgement Day when everyone will be judged at the same time and sent to either Heaven or Hell. I'm not really sure how I believe on that one.
But you're right, if God doesn't exist, there won't be a Judgement Day and everything will just go on forever. But I believe that He does exist and there will come a day and time when everyone will be judged by the hand of God and will either live beautifully in Heaven or horribly in Hell.
If you want, I can give you my brother's email address and he can prolly answer alot of your questions as he is studying to be a minister and has taken numerous courses over the last 3 or 4 years. Anytime I have a question that just won't get outta my head, I call him or email him and he usually has an answer for me. And he's a great guy, not one of those holier than thou types. He has been to the deepest depths of sin and climbed out to become an amazing person. But if you do email him, he'll prolly ask you just as many questions as you ask him lol so be prepared.
And im stating a simple fact that this is something scientists and science can't and will never provide an answer or an explanation for. Unless they find proof of God creating it or Aliens planting this organism on Earth long ago this question will remain unanswered.
Why can't you accept the fact that non-living matter by chance coming together to form living organisms is about as possible as this engine you spoke of by chance creating and putting itself together piece by piece on its own? Wheres the logic in that? How is this belief any different than any other religious belief? and I'm the one that believes in fairy tales? Yeah right!.
Why can't you accept the fact that non-living matter by chance coming together to form living organisms is about as possible as this engine you spoke of by chance creating and putting itself together piece by piece on its own? Wheres the logic in that? How is this belief any different than any other religious belief? and I'm the one that believes in fairy tales? Yeah right!.
You just accepted the fact that science doesn't yet know, yet you provide your own theory immediately afterwards.
Look, just because science doesn't know yet, doesn't make your version the right one instantly.
"How is this belief any different than any other religious belief?"
lol, uh, because we don't belief in some big watchmaker putting it all together?
There are a lot of things in the universe that we don't understand.
Also, i can flip your little argument around, saying that the engine can't create itself is the same as saying God can't create himself.
Grats, you've just debunked your own religion.
Look, just because science doesn't know yet, doesn't make your version the right one instantly.
"How is this belief any different than any other religious belief?"
lol, uh, because we don't belief in some big watchmaker putting it all together?
There are a lot of things in the universe that we don't understand.
Also, i can flip your little argument around, saying that the engine can't create itself is the same as saying God can't create himself.
Grats, you've just debunked your own religion.
No i never accepted the fact that science doesn't yet know I accepted the fact that we'll never know through science, because it's not a matter of science its a matter of magic for something to magicaly appear, magicaly put itself together and magicaly give life to itself
Never said it did
Yet many atheists and evolution believers, probably including you believe that this cell created itself, put itself together, gave itself life and began evolving, How is this belief any different than any religious belief?
God = Created himself, gave himself life, and gave many species life (although this not not what we believe anyway)
Cell = Created itself, gave itself life, and gave life to many species
Whats the difference? that we believe a supreme being is behind all that while you believe that it's all done by chance?
Yeah some science that is! I'd start worshipping this Almighty Cell if i were you :laugh:
Lol you'll just debunk your own beliefs if you flip it, You're like the third person to mention this baseless argument. You should practice reading peoples posts before posting. You can't compare the 2 because according to you evolution is based on "science" while religion is based on faith. When the time comes that belief in Evolution is based solely on faith alone you can use the argument that this cell created itself. I believe that day is already here.
You can ONLY use or flip that argument when you admit Evolution is about as unscientific as God. Until then that answer is pathetic. You've just put Evolution in the same catergory as God.
Never said it did
Yet many atheists and evolution believers, probably including you believe that this cell created itself, put itself together, gave itself life and began evolving, How is this belief any different than any religious belief?
God = Created himself, gave himself life, and gave many species life (although this not not what we believe anyway)
Cell = Created itself, gave itself life, and gave life to many species
Whats the difference? that we believe a supreme being is behind all that while you believe that it's all done by chance?
Yeah some science that is! I'd start worshipping this Almighty Cell if i were you :laugh:
Also, i can flip your little argument around, saying that the engine can't create itself is the same as saying God can't create himself.
Grats, you've just debunked your own religion.
Grats, you've just debunked your own religion.
You can ONLY use or flip that argument when you admit Evolution is about as unscientific as God. Until then that answer is pathetic. You've just put Evolution in the same catergory as God.
I'm not saying everything started with one cell that created itself. You're putting words in my mouth. I've said twice over that I don't know yet how life started, and I accept my ignorance. Time will tell how we came to be.
Why can't i compare the two? You claim it's illogical and not possible for a cell, or any lifeform for that matter, to create itself. yet, God created himself and that's a-okay?
Sounds like a proper comparison to me. I'm not saying that life started that way, i'm responsing to things you have said.
Also, you still seem unable to grasp the "the origins of life" or whatever we wanna call it and evolution are two different concept. Evolutionists don't necessarily believe that all life came from 1 mystical cell.
You really need to stop putting labels on people and then fixing half truths as if all A-labeled people say A-things, and all B-labeled people say B-things. Yes, abstract analogy, too bad.
I'm done with this dicussion. I should've known better rather than engage in dialogue with a religious person the likes of you. It just, how shall I put it, takes the fun out of debating.
bye
I believe in god because he's real. The bible is 100% accurate and the more i read it the more i realize god is legit.
evolution is not real. a few of you believe in that and it's fine. but please tell me the date and time that evolution stopped-because if evolution was real, we would still have new creations and creatures yearly.
evolution is not real. a few of you believe in that and it's fine. but please tell me the date and time that evolution stopped-because if evolution was real, we would still have new creations and creatures yearly.
For fucks sake, everybody should be able to speak their mind, but if you truly have no fucking clue how evolution works, shut up about it, k?
Now, for the inevitable explanation:
evolution is still going strong, day by day, it's just that it's not an overnight thing really. it takes some time. say, tens of thousands of years to begin with. No one is literally going to witness one species evolve to another, but we can see it in everything that lives, because evolution is constantly happening. Man just doesnt live long enough to witness it with our own eyes.
See, that's what it's all about for you and ppl of faith. "What can we worship?" Evolutionary chance or some Being? You need something to worship. So you create a God to fill your need. To believe that God exists is to believe that you stand in some relation to his existence such that his existence is itself the reason for your belief. However, non-believing people have no such relation to their non-belief.
I don't know if you got that, but it's worth thinking on.
I don't know if you got that, but it's worth thinking on.
You're not getting the point that im try to get across, Im perfectly fine with holding that belief that this cell created itself, but that makes that belief just as fairy taleish and unscientific as religion and God. And as probable and possible as God creating everything.
Well Darwin the founder of evolution did, and even adressed this issue in his books. Some evolutionists even went as far proving him right by trying to create life through spontaneous combustion by re-creating the environment that this cell was believed to be created in, which resulted in utter failure. leading them to acknowledge the fact that life just simply can't come from non-life. and yes evolution does say that all life came from this single-celled organism
No, that was just as a joke, what i meant by that is to show that this belief is very much similar to religious beliefs
Well Darwin the founder of evolution did, and even adressed this issue in his books. Some evolutionists even went as far proving him right by trying to create life through spontaneous combustion by re-creating the environment that this cell was believed to be created in, which resulted in utter failure. leading them to acknowledge the fact that life just simply can't come from non-life. and yes evolution does say that all life came from this single-celled organism
No, that was just as a joke, what i meant by that is to show that this belief is very much similar to religious beliefs
Faith "belief in the unseen and unproven"
God is still going strong, day by day, it's just that he's not an overnight thing really. it takes some time. say, tens of thousands of years to begin with. No one is literally going to witness God create new species, but we can see him and his work in everything that lives, because God is constantly operating everything happening. Man just doesnt live long enough to witness God with our own eyes Yet
God is still going strong, day by day, it's just that he's not an overnight thing really. it takes some time. say, tens of thousands of years to begin with. No one is literally going to witness God create new species, but we can see him and his work in everything that lives, because God is constantly operating everything happening. Man just doesnt live long enough to witness God with our own eyes Yet
Contrary to God, evolution has buckets o' evidence to support it. Fossils, to name something, give us a great clue on how things work.
Just because we can't literally see it happen because we're long since dead before anything significantly happens, does not mean it is untrue. Direct eye contact isn't required to make it evidence. Hence, you flipflop failed miserably.
So what? Darwin theorised about the origin of life. He may have been wrong about that, he may be right.
"and yes evolution does say that all life came from this single-celled organism"
You are hopeless. Do I have to explain it again? Evolutionism mostly deals with the way how creatures adapt and respond to their enviroment in order to survive. Damn, are all muslims this stubborn?
That's fine by me, I have never claimed life came from 1 cell, so that point is rather void in your debate with me, isn't it?
Just because we can't literally see it happen because we're long since dead before anything significantly happens, does not mean it is untrue. Direct eye contact isn't required to make it evidence. Hence, you flipflop failed miserably.
So what? Darwin theorised about the origin of life. He may have been wrong about that, he may be right.
"and yes evolution does say that all life came from this single-celled organism"
You are hopeless. Do I have to explain it again? Evolutionism mostly deals with the way how creatures adapt and respond to their enviroment in order to survive. Damn, are all muslims this stubborn?
That's fine by me, I have never claimed life came from 1 cell, so that point is rather void in your debate with me, isn't it?
First, no one says a cell created itself. You simplify what people do say is likely how things work, and then refute it. So, you don't really refute anything. A cell didn't say, "Let there be me," and there was a cell. But that's what you're claiming scientists believe.
First, it's "spontaneous generation," not combustion. Second, that term and notions about it are from the 1600s. The current term is abiogenesis. Which says that the conditions of the early earth were right for life to develop, to come together out of the sunlight and water and chemicals that were being mixed together for billions of years.
In 1953, the chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks organic amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, had formed. That's what you're calling an utter failure? The hell you been smokin' boi?
First, it's "spontaneous generation," not combustion. Second, that term and notions about it are from the 1600s. The current term is abiogenesis. Which says that the conditions of the early earth were right for life to develop, to come together out of the sunlight and water and chemicals that were being mixed together for billions of years.
In 1953, the chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks organic amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, had formed. That's what you're calling an utter failure? The hell you been smokin' boi?
Duke,
first off how do you know what you know? you are basically saying there is no proof in god, yet there is no proof of what you are saying.
how do you know the fossils are 10's of thousands of years old? how do you know they arent really a few thousand? or a few hundred for all you know? you put your faith in what man tells you, where as we others believe there is a loving god to put our faith in- instead of an flawed man.
secondly the evolution thing -
things still evolving all around us is lame. where are the facts to validate that? in fact where is the 'missing link' between man and monkey? speaking of monkey, if we man evolved from that breed, why do they still exist? shouldnt they be in family pictures?
where are the hybrid animals that are between species at this point? evolution has no foundation. the person that is walking around today is not different than that of man when he first walked the earth.
and if science is the study of things around you, how in the world can 'science' study early man when the subject isnt around anymore? the very term science is contradicted when it's used to study something that 's not there.
first off how do you know what you know? you are basically saying there is no proof in god, yet there is no proof of what you are saying.
how do you know the fossils are 10's of thousands of years old? how do you know they arent really a few thousand? or a few hundred for all you know? you put your faith in what man tells you, where as we others believe there is a loving god to put our faith in- instead of an flawed man.
secondly the evolution thing -
things still evolving all around us is lame. where are the facts to validate that? in fact where is the 'missing link' between man and monkey? speaking of monkey, if we man evolved from that breed, why do they still exist? shouldnt they be in family pictures?
where are the hybrid animals that are between species at this point? evolution has no foundation. the person that is walking around today is not different than that of man when he first walked the earth.
and if science is the study of things around you, how in the world can 'science' study early man when the subject isnt around anymore? the very term science is contradicted when it's used to study something that 's not there.
the big bang theory is lame also -
nothing plus nothing equals a fully functional universe, with living beings- sounds silly
the chances of that happening would be like a junk yard exploding (for no reason mind you) and creating a series of self contained super computers.
the second law of thermo dynamics is that energy can not be created nor destroyed..so how can energy in space suddenly create anything, let alone a universe that supports life?
nothing plus nothing equals a fully functional universe, with living beings- sounds silly
the chances of that happening would be like a junk yard exploding (for no reason mind you) and creating a series of self contained super computers.
the second law of thermo dynamics is that energy can not be created nor destroyed..so how can energy in space suddenly create anything, let alone a universe that supports life?
"Duke,
first off how do you know what you know? you are basically saying there is no proof in god, yet there is no proof of what you are saying.
how do you know the fossils are 10's of thousands of years old? how do you know they arent really a few thousand? or a few hundred for all you know? you put your faith in what man tells you, where as we others believe there is a loving god to put our faith in- instead of an flawed man."
It's been tested of course. Not by me, granted, I can't conduct carbon dating.
"things still evolving all around us is lame. where are the facts to validate that? in fact where is the 'missing link' between man and monkey? speaking of monkey, if we man evolved from that breed, why do they still exist? shouldnt they be in family pictures?
where are the hybrid animals that are between species at this point? evolution has no foundation. the person that is walking around today is not different than that of man when he first walked the earth. "
There are no animals "between species". That defies the concept of evolution itself. And wth do you mean with family pictures? Man evolved tens of thousands of years ago. And no, none of "the breed of then" is still here of course. 1.) Too much time has passed. 2.) He would've evolved along.
Again, this shows you know jack all about evolution and rather assume assume assume. Stop assuming.
"nothing plus nothing equals a fully functional universe, with living beings- sounds silly"
Incorrect. Stop assuming.
"the second law of thermo dynamics is that energy can not be created nor destroyed..so how can energy in space suddenly create anything, let alone a universe that supports life?"
no one says it suddenly created itself, wipey. Read Jokerman's post.
First, it's "spontaneous generation," not combustion. Second, that term and notions about it are from the 1600s. The current term is abiogenesis. Which says that the conditions of the early earth were right for life to develop, to come together out of the sunlight and water and chemicals that were being mixed together for billions of years.
Right. Got that? Good. Now stop assuming.
To each his own and all, but stop justifying your religious views with bad arguments about evolution and/or science. Either stfu, or do some proper research and then try again.
first off how do you know what you know? you are basically saying there is no proof in god, yet there is no proof of what you are saying.
how do you know the fossils are 10's of thousands of years old? how do you know they arent really a few thousand? or a few hundred for all you know? you put your faith in what man tells you, where as we others believe there is a loving god to put our faith in- instead of an flawed man."
It's been tested of course. Not by me, granted, I can't conduct carbon dating.
"things still evolving all around us is lame. where are the facts to validate that? in fact where is the 'missing link' between man and monkey? speaking of monkey, if we man evolved from that breed, why do they still exist? shouldnt they be in family pictures?
where are the hybrid animals that are between species at this point? evolution has no foundation. the person that is walking around today is not different than that of man when he first walked the earth. "
There are no animals "between species". That defies the concept of evolution itself. And wth do you mean with family pictures? Man evolved tens of thousands of years ago. And no, none of "the breed of then" is still here of course. 1.) Too much time has passed. 2.) He would've evolved along.
Again, this shows you know jack all about evolution and rather assume assume assume. Stop assuming.
"nothing plus nothing equals a fully functional universe, with living beings- sounds silly"
Incorrect. Stop assuming.
"the second law of thermo dynamics is that energy can not be created nor destroyed..so how can energy in space suddenly create anything, let alone a universe that supports life?"
no one says it suddenly created itself, wipey. Read Jokerman's post.
First, it's "spontaneous generation," not combustion. Second, that term and notions about it are from the 1600s. The current term is abiogenesis. Which says that the conditions of the early earth were right for life to develop, to come together out of the sunlight and water and chemicals that were being mixed together for billions of years.
Right. Got that? Good. Now stop assuming.
To each his own and all, but stop justifying your religious views with bad arguments about evolution and/or science. Either stfu, or do some proper research and then try again.
They say by chance and coincidence in other words it created itself.
That is soooo far from the truth jokerman and you know it. Lol Did you really think i didn't know about stanley millers experiment? Who do you think i was referring to when i said evolutionists tried to create life by re-creating the environment of when life was believed to have began? Stanley miller of course.
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 Stanley Miller himself confessed that his experiments were rigged in a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. I will search for the article.
That is soooo far from the truth jokerman and you know it. Lol Did you really think i didn't know about stanley millers experiment? Who do you think i was referring to when i said evolutionists tried to create life by re-creating the environment of when life was believed to have began? Stanley miller of course.
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 Stanley Miller himself confessed that his experiments were rigged in a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. I will search for the article.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.