If he literally thought that, it's surprising that he didn't use only lifeless rock in his experiment - but he didn't use any rock.
Perhaps he was using 'lifeless rock' as an evocative soundbite...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If he literally thought that, it's surprising that he didn't use only lifeless rock in his experiment - but he didn't use any rock.2. Miller himself admits that the lifeless rock starting point is all you really have.
If details are so important to you, then, based on what Miller is quoted as saying, you should be claiming "a rock" not "rocks".Actually it is the "contrast" between "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time" vs "God can do it in a single evening-and-morning on day 6".
details.
Interesting that Miller didn't say it was just "a rock" that achieved everything. That's just a dishonest paraphrase on your part. You omitted the atmosphere, as well as insisting that "the Earth was a lifeless rock" is meant to be taken literally rather than as a figure of speech.1. You have someone on this thread already arguing for that very thing.
2. Miller himself admits that the lifeless rock starting point is all you really have.
Creationists and atheists all agree that at one time the earth was a barren planet with absolutely no life on it - - and of course today it does have life on it.
Creationists will say that an infinitely capable Creator created all life on land in a single evening-and-morning on day six of creation week.
Atheists will claim rocks alone did all that over billions of years rocks-to-horse etc as the two end points (for example)
So then "some differences" exist at that point but not on the starting condition.
================================ agreement #2.
But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.
But "if there were" such a thing and it was reliable then any time you "add evolution primer" to the culture dish and the prokaryotes did not pop-out eukaryotes you could call that a "fail" of the primer.
And what is more - any time you did not intentionally add the "evolution fertilizer" but the prokaryotes did pop-out eukaryotes over time you might suppose that the experiment was "contaminated" by some stray bits of evolution-fertilizer getting into the experiment.
==============================
Fortunately there is no such thing as evolutiton-fertilizer or primer so that sort of fail scenario is nothing to worry about.
Hopefully all can agree.
============= and no such thing as evolution limited by "intent"
Not only is there no such thing as evolution-fertilizer but there is also no such thing as " evolution-limited-by-intent-of-observer passively watching" since the observer never had evolution-fertilizer to start with.
I've been experimenting with wet rocks for years.
I left my wet rocks in the sun, and the open air; but no monkeys popped out. How much heat should I use? What is the "ect" part? I want to get this experiment right.
Is that rock near things that produce material for life such as black smokers at the bottom of the ocean or other things that could provide it?
There is unlikely any magick formula to get life in any speed we could see. it be a process that take time, the one advantage that we have is chemistry. If abiogenesis happened, it was chemistry which can happen trillions of times a day on trillion of planets. With large attempts things become inevitable to happen. It's not a case of fertilizer as much as what is there creates life given enough time.
If details are so important to you, then, based on what Miller is quoted as saying, you should be claiming "a rock" not "rocks".
.
If he literally thought that, it's surprising that he didn't use only lifeless rock in his experiment - but he didn't use any rock.
Okay. It's a fact that you are persistently and consistently misrepresenting scientific claims re: abiogenesis and evolution.
BobRyan said: ↑
Actually it is the "contrast" between
A. Atheist claims of the form "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time"
I'm not aware of any atheists that claim this. It appears you're once again resorting to strawman claims.
Unless you can actually show someone making that claim, you made that up and are repeatedly lying about it.
As Stanley Miller pointed out (of the Urey-Miller experiment ) - "Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them."
==========================================================
Question: What about submarine vents as a source of prebiotic compounds?
Answer: (Miller)
"I have a very simple response to that . Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. Indeed, these vents are one of the limiting factors on what organic compounds you are going to have in the primitive oceans. At the present time, the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. That places a constraint on how much organic material you can get. Furthermore, it gives you a time scale for the origin of life. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful."
And very few chemical reactions take billions of years to complete.
Well what would Mr Miller expect? Does Mr Miller think anyone else knows?“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones.
Agreed .. so why say that?BobRyan said:If you can make these chemicals in the conditions of cosmic dust or a meteorite, I presume you could also make them on the Earth. I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support.
How do you know that?BobRyan said:... I'm skeptical that you are going to get more than a few percent of organic compounds from comets and dust. It ultimately doesn't make much difference where it comes from.
All the vents thus far explored in detail, are located on Earth (which is life-central).Then why are there materials in some vents that point to life in them? :>
Can't find the article but read about this a while back. And ummmm plenty of life exists around these vents now, we have bacteria and other animals that live in and around those vents and far worse. Might want to keep updated.
All the vents thus far explored in detail, are located on Earth (which is life-central).
Just because some vent may exist elswhere other than on Earth, does say anything much really.
Oh ok .. I misread, then.No no, unless I'm missreading you.
I mean OUR vents have material flowing out of them from deep below that seem to indicate that may be life deeper down. it's not bacteria or such, but the waste bacteria produce. I was responding to his claim that bacteria would die from the vents.
I'm fine with that too - as long as it's understood that he didn't think that the building blocks of life on Earth literally arose from lifeless rock. If that had been the case, his experiment would have involved rock, and only rock.it is his own interview report that uses that term for lifeless planet called Earth.
I am fine with that.
you are one of those claiming it - and then asking me to prove that rocks could not do it... did you forget??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?