I can't remember who said this, but they told me "they would rather die then to see creation being taugh in schools." He then ranted and raved about how creationist always are wrong and everything they say are LIES LIES LIES. Mostly what i hear on this forum is much of the same thing. Evolutionist think that all creationist lie and alter numbers in experiments. Though a Ph.D is sill the same wheather what stance you take. My problem is that they only teach evolution in schools. If people wanna teach evolution, fine, do it, but also say another argument, which is obviously creation, most people believe in one or the other. I find it funny how everything that evolutionist say is Gold, but creationist is just a pile of lies.
I recently pick up a book at the library named "Science and Technology." In this book they hit every important events in science and technology in the last 100 years or so. Upon reading this book i noticed about 5-6 pages soley for evolution. In this they talked about Natural Selection, amino acids, fossils, orgin of humans, ect, things that are talked about here.
One area though got my attention, it was concering Chemical Evoluition and they sited an experiment that Harold Urey and Stanley Miller performed in 1956 at Univesity Of Chicago. I've done serious research prior to reading this about this experiment. The book says, and i quote "This experiment marked an important milestone, because it showed that it was possibl that materials, like amino acids, can be formed by natural process from non-living things." End qoute. This book praised this experiment for almost creating life in a test-tube.
There are many things wrong with this experiment.
1. Wrong starting materials
2. Wrong Conditions
3. Wrong Results
Wrong starting materials: What they did was fill a closed system with materials that they believed had been present in Earth's early atmosphere. They used Methane (CH4) and Ammonia (NH3), water, mathane and a few more. Every scientist will tell you that ammonia would have decomposed by Ultra Vilot Light and Methane 1: would have polymerized (formed chains) and fallen into the ocean and onto the earth’s surface. 2: This would have formed an oil slick from 1 - 10 meters deep over the surface of the earth. 3: This should be noticeable in the sedimentary rocks, but nothing even vaguely resembling it has been found. Also oxygen was NOT used. Oxygen has always been present in the earth’s atmosphere, the oldest rocks have presence of Oxygen. An important source of oxygen on the early earth would have been water photodissociation. Ultraviolet light would have split atmospheric water into hydrogen and oxygen. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen’s book The Mystery of Life’s Origin contains a full discussion of this topic.
Wrong Conditions: An electric spark ws used to simulate the effects of lighting. Well this electric spark was used to combine th gas molecules. But, this would also separate them. The spark is much better at destroying the amino acids than forming them. So what they did is they circulated the gases. The gases that fused he kept and the molecules that were destroyed he just cycled them out. He only trapped the molecules he wanted. This weeding out process is obviously not what happened in the early earth.
Wrong Results: First and foremost, the amino acids that formed created both left and right handed amino acids. Anyone who knows anything about amino acids know that right handed amino acids are possible to combine amino acids, only left are used. Only left-handed amino acids are suitable for life. Proteins with right-handed amino acids are useless.
The ultimate by-products of this experient was:
Tar (Toxic) 83%
Carboxylic Acids (Toxic) 13%
Amino Acids 2%
The poisoness conditions were made of TAR, a nunsis of life.
Evolutionist, Creaionist, and Embryologists thoroughly repudiated and rejected this idea, but it is still published in textbooks and taught.
Theres tons and tons are articles written about this subjec, just type in a google search, my favorite though is: http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/etmcmull/CHEM.htm
If you wanna hear what noble scientist's say about it go to:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2003/dc-03-03.htm
The experiment was awesome to evolutionist in the beginning, and now, evolutionist disreguard this experiement as false. Nothing went right. In a debate against evolutionist and creationist, Dr Gish was pleased to see Stanley Miller in the auidance. The experiment was brought up while Miller was there. Gish asked Miller if he had any comments to his experiment, miller said "I havent believed in that experiment for many years."
My problem is this book, as with almost every textbook claims that evolution has HARDCORE evidence. This simply isnt the case. I heard soooo many times that creationist made up info and tell lies. Yet textbooks are still praising this experiement as proof of chemical evolution, which isnt the case. This book that praised this experiment was written in 1999, wow. Evolutionist have alot more to lose than creationist if there wrong about intelligent design. Evolution is a dying theory.
Nobel laureate George Wald of Harvard admitted:
"We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a ‘philosophical necessity.’ It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation"
I dont care if evolution is taught in school, but at least have a second opinion to give to the kids. I will leave with this:
According to a survey of 400 high-school biology teachers conducted by two University of Texas (at Arlington) sociology professors, 30 percent believe in Biblical creationism. Nineteen percent believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. The sociologists consider the situation `disastrous.
In two California school districts: Should creation be taught in the public schools?'—89 percent, yes; 8 percent, no; 3 percent, undecided
and.
Should scientific evidence for creation be presented along with evolution.'—84.3 percent, yes; 7.8 percent, no; 6.3 percent, uncertain; 1.6 percent, neither.
and lastly:
U.S.Gallop poll statistics tells us that 61% of people in america believe in creation, 35 % are theistic evolutionist and 4% are atheistic evolutionist.
It will be a proud day when evolution and creation are taught in schools for the children to decide.
I recently pick up a book at the library named "Science and Technology." In this book they hit every important events in science and technology in the last 100 years or so. Upon reading this book i noticed about 5-6 pages soley for evolution. In this they talked about Natural Selection, amino acids, fossils, orgin of humans, ect, things that are talked about here.
One area though got my attention, it was concering Chemical Evoluition and they sited an experiment that Harold Urey and Stanley Miller performed in 1956 at Univesity Of Chicago. I've done serious research prior to reading this about this experiment. The book says, and i quote "This experiment marked an important milestone, because it showed that it was possibl that materials, like amino acids, can be formed by natural process from non-living things." End qoute. This book praised this experiment for almost creating life in a test-tube.
There are many things wrong with this experiment.
1. Wrong starting materials
2. Wrong Conditions
3. Wrong Results
Wrong starting materials: What they did was fill a closed system with materials that they believed had been present in Earth's early atmosphere. They used Methane (CH4) and Ammonia (NH3), water, mathane and a few more. Every scientist will tell you that ammonia would have decomposed by Ultra Vilot Light and Methane 1: would have polymerized (formed chains) and fallen into the ocean and onto the earth’s surface. 2: This would have formed an oil slick from 1 - 10 meters deep over the surface of the earth. 3: This should be noticeable in the sedimentary rocks, but nothing even vaguely resembling it has been found. Also oxygen was NOT used. Oxygen has always been present in the earth’s atmosphere, the oldest rocks have presence of Oxygen. An important source of oxygen on the early earth would have been water photodissociation. Ultraviolet light would have split atmospheric water into hydrogen and oxygen. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen’s book The Mystery of Life’s Origin contains a full discussion of this topic.
Wrong Conditions: An electric spark ws used to simulate the effects of lighting. Well this electric spark was used to combine th gas molecules. But, this would also separate them. The spark is much better at destroying the amino acids than forming them. So what they did is they circulated the gases. The gases that fused he kept and the molecules that were destroyed he just cycled them out. He only trapped the molecules he wanted. This weeding out process is obviously not what happened in the early earth.
Wrong Results: First and foremost, the amino acids that formed created both left and right handed amino acids. Anyone who knows anything about amino acids know that right handed amino acids are possible to combine amino acids, only left are used. Only left-handed amino acids are suitable for life. Proteins with right-handed amino acids are useless.
The ultimate by-products of this experient was:
Tar (Toxic) 83%
Carboxylic Acids (Toxic) 13%
Amino Acids 2%
The poisoness conditions were made of TAR, a nunsis of life.
Evolutionist, Creaionist, and Embryologists thoroughly repudiated and rejected this idea, but it is still published in textbooks and taught.
Theres tons and tons are articles written about this subjec, just type in a google search, my favorite though is: http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/etmcmull/CHEM.htm
If you wanna hear what noble scientist's say about it go to:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2003/dc-03-03.htm
The experiment was awesome to evolutionist in the beginning, and now, evolutionist disreguard this experiement as false. Nothing went right. In a debate against evolutionist and creationist, Dr Gish was pleased to see Stanley Miller in the auidance. The experiment was brought up while Miller was there. Gish asked Miller if he had any comments to his experiment, miller said "I havent believed in that experiment for many years."
My problem is this book, as with almost every textbook claims that evolution has HARDCORE evidence. This simply isnt the case. I heard soooo many times that creationist made up info and tell lies. Yet textbooks are still praising this experiement as proof of chemical evolution, which isnt the case. This book that praised this experiment was written in 1999, wow. Evolutionist have alot more to lose than creationist if there wrong about intelligent design. Evolution is a dying theory.
Nobel laureate George Wald of Harvard admitted:
"We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a ‘philosophical necessity.’ It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation"
I dont care if evolution is taught in school, but at least have a second opinion to give to the kids. I will leave with this:
According to a survey of 400 high-school biology teachers conducted by two University of Texas (at Arlington) sociology professors, 30 percent believe in Biblical creationism. Nineteen percent believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. The sociologists consider the situation `disastrous.
In two California school districts: Should creation be taught in the public schools?'—89 percent, yes; 8 percent, no; 3 percent, undecided
and.
Should scientific evidence for creation be presented along with evolution.'—84.3 percent, yes; 7.8 percent, no; 6.3 percent, uncertain; 1.6 percent, neither.
and lastly:
U.S.Gallop poll statistics tells us that 61% of people in america believe in creation, 35 % are theistic evolutionist and 4% are atheistic evolutionist.
It will be a proud day when evolution and creation are taught in schools for the children to decide.
