Creationists, may I ask you...

a reply to: Cypress

Keep,spouting your mantra. Left and right amino acids were created by the experiment nature creates left not left and right. The experiment did not reproduce the so called soup and the beginning of life.

a reply to: Cypress

I've used the same tools that you and barcs seem to deploy. Where is your evidence?

Where are your own observations and conclusions or are you so entrenched in your belief system that you prefer to just make childish statements and really have no clue about how ironic each of your posts are..

He hasn't done this....when you haven't, on every turn. You prefer to sit on some self assembled pedestal and look down just because you believe you are right and a certain view is right. Why is it right to you?.. Because every knows it is, you claim. what an incredibly poor position.

When you have some intelligent comments then perhaps I'll in kind respond.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Cypress

Keep,spouting your mantra. Left and right amino acids were created by the experiment nature creates left not left and right. The experiment did not reproduce the so called soup and the beginning of life.

The experiment wasn't trying to recreate the "primordial soup", as you put it.

The experiment was trying to find out if it was possible.

There's a massive difference.

Here's an example.

Paper. We know how it's made (some might not, but let's say they do). Now I want to see if I can figure out if it's possible to make paper. I cut down a tree, blitz it, dry it out enough to make it not just a soup, flatten it best I can then dry it out. Now this paper is rough, lumpy, not very nice, but it's still a form of paper.

Did I recreate a typical A4 piece of paper? No. What I did is prove paper can be made by doing it myself. The next set of tests and experiments would be to get it flatter, more uniform, whiter etc.

That's all this experiment was. It was a "Can it be done? Is it possible?" Not a "This is exactly how it was done".

a reply to: TerryDon79


Hi there, thanks for that.

I do realise this, but in the end the experiment really doesn't prove anything on one hand and on the other after much taking away and adding it produced something. Nature selects left handed amino acids for its art and does not select right handed amino acids. The experiment does not show why or how. The experiment was used as an ax ample to support evolution, my terminology may not be favourable to some but in the end,

It took a huge amount of maybes he earth was like this, in order to add an inhibitor to produce the results. I can understand how this can be taken with regard to your above post to me, but I can also lay claim to it as an argument against those that adhere to theory evolution.

Thanks for the post I appreciate it

Regard

David

a reply to: drevill

I think the problem is that you're looking at it wrong. The experiment isn't looking at the question why. It's looking at the question how.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Barcs

Mate one thing is true I'm not a liar, I'll try to get back to you with the articles, I have a neurological prob and getting tied, it's 10pm here in the uk.

No rush at all. It would be great if you could provide some science that contradicts the Miller-Urey experiment, since you alleged it was debunked and I have never heard that. If that's true, I'm interested in reading about it.

However you keep making statements and yet follow the same paths, no evidence just it's true, it's proven kind of words. Can you not see this?

Please let me know which statements you need backed up. If I didn't source a claim, it was likely because I consider it common knowledge. I'm not just pulling them out of my backside. There is a pinned thread in this section that comprehensively lists the evidence in favor of evolution. Don't blame us because you refuse to research it beyond creationist blogs and youtube videos.

It doesn't matter the number of papers on anything, that doesn't make a thing so, what may be in them could, but that comment doesn't.

That is an absurd statement. Of course it matters how much research has been done on a subject when considering its validity. Yes, verified repeatable peer reviewed experiments DO make a thing so. Do you blindly deny the theory of gravity as well?

I gave you the nam of the person quoting on one George Cody,

The bada quote is from the Oxford journals The Origins Divide: Reconciling Views on How Life Began

That's great, now please give me a link. I don't see anything that contradicts evolution at all in any of your quotes.

Harvard is

Cosmic Evolution - Chemical
www.cfa.harvard.edu... › fr_1_chem4

Ok I read it. I didn't see any contradictions to biological evolution or abiogenesis. They had a few possible explanations, but again, not knowing the exact answer does not make it wrong. The article mentioned that it was still a mystery. How does that go against Miller-Urey or other aboigenesis experiments? Can you please point out exactly what in the article contradicts evolutionary science or even abiogenesis? When something is designated as hypothesis in science, by definition that means it hasn't been verified yet.

Lastly, the comments about how it could rather than it did, highlights my point. The argument was used in a evolutionary context originally and I argued that, and I'll confess to saying debunked was probably a little too strong, that it wasn't conclusive in respect to identifying the origins of life.

Debunked means proven wrong and by no means has that been done.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

They are completely different. Hypotheses are not proven and are works in progress. Scientific theories are based on tangible physical evidence, and verified data. So complaining about abiogenesis not being proven is beating a dead horse. Nobody claims that it is proven. Also, abiogenesis is a completely separate process from evolution. It seems like you don't understand the difference between the two things, or between a theory and a hypothesis in science.

Evolution is proven, not the origin of life. Evolution does automatically equal atheism or materialism. One can easily believe in god and still accept scientific facts when they come out. Nobody with a rational mind denies evolution anymore, it's just religious fundies who interpret their holy book as absolute literal truth despite it being written by a number of different humans thousands of years ago. Dismissing science in favor of THAT is beyond ridiculous.

Ha ha ha ha ha just because it's not used doesn't mean it doesn't exsist, what a preposterous notion. Ha ha. Wishing doesn't make it so.

I know many things that exsist but are not used. from used very little to not used at all.

I never said the term didn't exist. I said it refers to a concept that is patently false. It's like the term "missing link". They are both invented by creationists to make evolution seem less credible, but the evidence behind it is staggering.

but in the end the experiment really doesn't prove anything on one hand and on the other after much taking away and adding it produced something.

The experiment proved that it can happen! THAT IS WHAT IT PROVED. I don't understand what is so complicated to understand about this? Nobody said that it proved the origin of life. We have stated numerous times that abiogenesis is a hypothesis and has not yet been proven.

Nature selects left handed amino acids for its art and does not select right handed amino acids.

No, nature does not select that, at least based on any evidence. The Harvard article you posted said that it was still a mystery and that it very likely just happened to arise that way. Natural selection is part of evolution, you may want to do some reading about it. Amino acids are not selected for. They are not genetic mutations.

The experiment was used as an ax ample to support evolution, my terminology may not be favourable to some but in the end,

No no no no no! The experiment was used to see if parts of abiogenesis can happen. The experiment proved that it CAN. For the last time, abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution. Stop equating the 2 things, it only demonstrates your ignorance, not only of evolution, but of science as a whole. You haven't yet posted a single point that goes against evolution. You have nitpicked the leading hypothesis on the origin of life, which scientists admit is not proven. What about evolution itself? You haven't even addressed it.

Where are your own observations and conclusions or are you so entrenched in your belief system that you prefer to just make childish statements and really have no clue about how ironic each of your posts are..

I guess I'll add irony to the list of things you don't understand. Calling evolution a belief system is laughably wrong, sorry you hate the science in favor of literal interpretations of fairy tales, but it is what it is. Science proves things.

You prefer to sit on some self assembled pedestal and look down just because you believe you are right and a certain view is right. Why is it right to you?.. Because every knows it is, you claim. what an incredibly poor position.

This quote right here exemplifies your misunderstanding. People aren't just promoting evolution as true because they believe in it. They are saying it is true because there are literally mountains of evidence that support it. Refusal to acknowledge the evidence, and dismissing it in favor of a religious belief system is arrogant and egotistical. It's also a slap in the face to the scientists that have been studying and researching evolution for the past 50+ years. What is your reason for denying evolution in spite of the large amount of evidence? Do you think all the evidence is faked or have you just not lifted so much as a finger to research both sides of the subject so you think it's not there?

Sorry for the long response. I don't expect you to respond to everything, but at least demonstrate for us which pieces of evidence for evolution are wrong. www.talkorigins.org... Here's a start.

a reply to: Barcs

With respect you aren't saying much. I've gone through your old posts and you attack those whilst employing the same tactics. Not really analytical at all are you?

There are some great discussions and great advocates here on A.T.S unfortunately, you are not among them in my opinion.

I liken it to talking to my children, that stomps and sulks and yet believes he is pedagogical to all others.

I have explained the the flaws in the experiment. Also see replies to terrydon

21 atoms used in the experiment, 7,000,000,000 in E. coli. They used a reduced atmosphere when the majority consensus is that the earth had one that was carbon dioxide rich. They added an inhibitor, removed and then added ferrous iron.

Jeff Bada himself said that it didn't advance prebiotic chemistry in any major way.

Now you have since said, the word COULD, but that is in no way quantifiable and neither is a demonstration that it did happen on earth in this

Left hand amino acids, I'm not sure why you deny this in your post left handed acids creat a long chain polymer called protein. These proteins can coil helixically, However, the experiment only created amino acids, they did not form proteins. The experiment also created right hand amino acids. The problem is that if you get a right hand in a chain can turn the chain to another direction. This renders the chain unless at best and harmful at worst.

All biologically active proteins use left handed amino acids save for a few poisons. Additionally nature uses alpha amino acids to created biological proteins but Miller created long proteins with 2,3,4 and more C atoms between the amin and the acid. Just one of these would break/damage a protein structure.

Miller had

The wrong starting molecules
The wrong conditions
The wrong result

He

Added an inhibitor to prevent decay,
Realised it was improbable that it would be around
Added Ferrous Iron instead.

He

Siphoned of the amino acids from the spark that created them, I don't believe that there was just one lightening bolt on the earth, leaving them with the spark would have destroyed them and he knew this.

I'll agree he created something but it's nothing. Like me emptying the contents of my food cupboard into a gigantic blender then lobbing it in the oven. It makes something, but it's not edible.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Barcs

With respect you aren't saying much. I've gone through your old posts and you attack those whilst employing the same tactics. Not really analytical at all are you?

There are some great discussions and great advocates here on A.T.S unfortunately, you are not among them in my opinion.

I liken it to talking to my children, that stomps and sulks and yet believes he is pedagogical to all others.

I have explained the the flaws in the experiment. Also see replies to terrydon

You haven't done anything. You haven't proved the experiment wrong at all. All you've done is said its wrong.

The experiment is a well known one. A simple google search will find it. Now you've said its wrong. Care to elaborate how it's wrong and show us why it's wrong? So far all you've done is said its wrong without backing it up with anything.

In case you missed it, HERE is the experiment in question. Please break it done to how, why and where it is wrong.

a reply to: TerryDon79

No I have done several times and again on my last post. I'll add more on it.

Reset my noggin is acting up so I'll be back later I hope

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: TerryDon79

No I have done several times and again on my last post. I'll add more on it

I read what you added.

Nowhere, AT ALL, is it stated that this was the way that life forms were formed on Earth.

The experiment, as has been explained to you already, was to see if it was possible to do it.

Regardless of what you think should have been done, the experiment was done the way it was.

Does it prove that this was the way life was made? NO

Does it prove that it's possible we could have come to be this way? YES

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Barcs

With respect you aren't saying much. I've gone through your old posts and you attack those whilst employing the same tactics. Not really analytical at all are you?

You haven't said anything at all that goes against evolution yet. You nitpicked what we already know is an unproven hypothesis. I don't attack people, I attack their faulty arguments, as I have been doing with you. Nobody is claiming Miller-Urey proves the origin of life or evolution, it is one small piece of what may be the process that started life on earth.

There are some great discussions and great advocates here on A.T.S unfortunately, you are not among them in my opinion. I liken it to talking to my children, that stomps and sulks and yet believes he is pedagogical to all others.

See folks, THIS is what a personal attack is. He makes accusations without context or citation and compares me to a child. I don't roll like that, but if somebody posts an argument that is blatantly wrong, I'm going to call them out on it. The purpose of the website is to deny ignorance, not to condone it. I don't usually sugar coat it. If somebody doesn't know what they are talking about, I'm going to let them know exactly that.

Sorry,
I have explained the the flaws in the experiment. Also see replies to terrydon

Where is your source? If you are expecting me to just take your word for it, you've got another thing coming. Please give the source of your information. All the stuff you wrote below this is dismissed without sources. Why is it so difficult for you to show us where you got the information from?