Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Are You A Moron? (Sorry, Couldn't Help Myself)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Sam Patterson on June 5, 2002 16:33:18 UTC

"Unless you wish to assert that "one" equals "none," or that lightning, hydrogen, water, methane and ammonia are not naturally occuring phenomena, then you have to concede I was correct."

Ok, I have a question for you. How often do amino acids create themselves in the wild? After all, all the scientist did was recreate naturally occuring compounds and add lighting. So it must happen all the time in the wild, right?

"I'm sure this 1953 experiment is not discussed at ICR; after all, ignorance is bliss."

And you are sure wrong, and quite blissful. Here are a several ICR links about his experiments, and life arising for non-living material:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-152b.htm

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-031.htm

The following quote is from this link:

http://www.icr.org/newsletters/impact/impactdec00.html

"...he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7"

Those quotes are from evolutionists.

"You said evolutionists "have no idea" how evolution began. The link I provided clearly disputes that, as it suggests one way evolution may have begun."

Read my links. Stanley's experiment proved nothing. KC2GWX 73's

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins