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.
I can't take seriously anyone who actually believes that the Miller experiments are "proof" that Abiogenesis could have happened in the distant past.
All Miller did was produce some amino acids in an atmosphere that probably never existed.
And suppose that even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get the simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the obvious necessary chemical changes that's needed to convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed.
Wow, so a scientist says there's an unknown in scientific inquiry. This is a list of unsolved problems in physics. Does this mean modern physics is false?Miller himself had his doubts.. "It's a problem," he said. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."
(quoted: Peter Radetsky, Earth, February 1998, "Life's Crucible" page 36 (Ev)
Creationists like myself like to talk about the difference that evolutionists falsely claim that their creation myth is a "scientific fact", even when it is widely known that there is no experimental proof for those beliefs.
My understanding is that experiments have shown that life does not originate under carefully controlled, ideal conditions.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase?So the logical conclusion is that it would or could not originate under less-than-ideal conditions that may occur naturally. Is that so wrong?
A pity, because it does. The spontaneous formation of amino acids in conditions that could occur on any number of planets is a demonstrated fact.I can't take seriously anyone who actually believes that the Miller experiments are "proof" that Abiogenesis could have happened in the distant past.
another thing richardTA pity, because it does. The spontaneous formation of amino acids in conditions that could occur on any number of planets is a demonstrated fact.
That the Earth's early atmosphere likey differed from that predicted by Miller and Urey is, with regards to your statement, of no consequence. Indeed, repeat experiments that correct for this still produce amino acids.
another thing richardT
abiogenesis is a FACT. its a FACT that there was at one time in earth's history that there was no life. it is a FACT that there was life after that
Congrats on getting out btw. Now hopefully you'll force yourself out of religion, like you almost managed to before.
It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html#part2
Is not the theory of evolution, believed to be the differences in offspring from a common ancestor will increase over time, until the two lines of descent are so different that they become separate species? Genetics on the other hand seems to debunk. That’s why the traditional ideas about species pose a problem for the theory of evolution. The general public like myself seems to be largely unaware that there is a serious "species problem" in the biological community. Are you stating otherwise? Isn't the origin of species still a big mystery? Aren't evolution scientists still today looking for an answer?.Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.
Evolution by natural selection is an observable phenomena, and Darwin's theory is testable and makes predictions - virtually everything known about biological systems can be explained in terms of evolution.
Even Prof Behe has admitted that so called micro-evolution is real, and he was essentially the founding father of ID.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that a simple combination of a few micro- events leads to what some call macro-evolution.
OK, well don't read that part then. Oops.No, it cannot explain how life originated.
Yea, and there is another question. Why does the Darwin tree appear to be Closing instead of growing? It appears most of the species that ever lived are extinct, yet all the textbook diagrams I ever saw have them growing. Where are all the darn transitional species? Why have they all stopped evolving? Why aren't we witnessing serious species changes today?Only how it reached it current state of development, and give us cope to to speculate on what could potentially happen in the future.
I should have stated it differently. Fossils are frequently found that are much older than previously believed. Like in China they have found sponge spores under the Cambrian explosion layer, however ther are no, absolutely none, transitional species to the Cambrian to support evolution. The excuse was always that the spores and such couldn't be fossilized, but they found them in the earlier layers? The evolutionary history has to be constantly revised to try to fit in with the new discoveries. And by and large students are largely kept in the dark about these discoveries because there are certain groups that don’t want the general public to know that true science is growing against evolution. The National Center for Science Education, are those whose goal is to censor scientific information so as not to confuse the poor students with the facts.Yes. My children have to attend RE lessons; the base of all the study can be considered fraudulant.
No. That wasn't what I was meaning to say.Would you employ a physics professor who publically considered atomic theory or gravity to be acasemically unsupported by evidence, and preferred to believe in the teachings of the ancient egyptians?
I've read a lot on Dick Dawkins. Also poor Dick is in true need of a good pastor, as evidenced by his book "The Dick Dawkins Delusion".Have a look at www.richarddawkins.net sometime, the good Professor has made quite a name for himself from books, lectures and debates on evolution. some clips are available online....
Whatever.This comment does not deserve an answer.
It's the future.Irriducable complexity is a myth, totally void of evidence or logic. If you would like to discuss this, please start or supply a link to an existing thread on the subject. I will gladly participate and supply plenty of evidence.
Science thrives on being questioned and analysed, but in the end you need to supply a viable alternative to the theory you are trying to debunk. also, you seamed to have accidently inserted the word 'religious' into this sentance. Natural selection has no icons and no deity, so I believe your post was not only incorrect but incoherant.
No, they evolve.Do snowflakes reproduce?
Nothing whatsoever. If however truthful depends upon your personal definition, I am relieved that you are not a researcher in a pharmacutical lab or a forensic scientist, or even a surgeon. Peoples lives would then be at stake and so the question of truth becomes even more relevant.
No. Tell me, where have seen replicating polymers becoming hypercycles? When have we seen hypercycles become protobionts? Heck we've never seen hypercycles or photobionts, they lie in the imagination of the Abiogenesists themselves.Given sufficient quantities of amino acids and given sufficent time, it is highly probable that life would form.
By all means, demonstrate your refutation. X is possible unless demonstrated otherwise.
Never, as far as I know. Like I said, it is simply a question of time before we see whether the abiogenesis theory pans out.Tell me, where have seen replicating polymers becoming hypercycles? When have we seen hypercycles become protobionts?
Naturally. However, this does not mean they don't exist, or didn't exist in the past.Heck we've never seen hypercycles or photobionts, they lie in the imagination of the Abiogenesists themselves.
What age were you when you decided to be a creationist?
and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?
Only because I give them the benefit of a doubt - (they'll thank me later).
I couldn't care less about another atheist's defence of religion, as consol said I speak for only myself.
What exactly was wrong with what I said? I simply wished that he would remove the shackles that bind him. He declared himself an atheist before, he can do it again. Here is one person who actually has a chance to escape dogma.
Oh I get it, because my view is that getting out of religion is a good thing, and I don't hide it, then I must be offensive.
And so the conflation of abiogenesis with evolution continues.
JamesDaJust doesn't even know what theory he's attacking!
And so the conflation of abiogenesis with evolution continues.
JamesDaJust doesn't even know what theory he's attacking!
Please! True science is good. Only evil is the pretence that science is always checking itself within itself, when no one likes to be wrong, even scientists. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?He's attacking Science
Science is EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
That's the thing; Abiogenesis ISN'T part of the theory of evolution. The former is concerned with the origin of life, the latter is concerned with the origin and change of species and one can be false without the other also becoming false.You are so right. I kinda lost my point.
Thanks for posting that out for me.
So I take it nobody is still clinging to Darwinism ToE because of molecular biology?
Almost like taking half a step toward creation theory. Like how many evolutionists have now chosen to remain agnostic on the actual origin of life, and will try to dodge the issue by claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
Because life seems to be a miracle.
I guess most of what I posted stands anyway.
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?