Discussion:
Yet another smack in the mouth for the Evolutionist's... the Miller - Urey experiment...
(too old to reply)
old man joe
2011-03-11 11:16:24 UTC
Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

according to this article. here we have an attempt to create life by probably well meaning but inept
scientist's hoping to find some way to show how life might come from things that are not alive.

if they would have paused for a moment and concluded from their own ' science ' that nothing of and
no combination of the dead elements in the Periodic Table are alive they'd have understood that life
is not in things not alive ( duh ) and can not be made out of things not alive.

but boy's will be boy's and so they set up what from the outset was doomed to failure to answer the
question : " Where did life come from ? "

assumptions abound right from the start of their experiment. things that are not alive were hoped
to come alive by introducing a simulated lightning bolt in a closed system resembling early earth
condition's... ( lightning and electricity is not alive nor is the air we breathe ) ... they
supposed that " early earth " is different than earth ( and it's elemental properties ) is today.

they failed to pause a moment and see that their pre-exisiting belief in chemical Evolution already
biased their thinking so that outcome would be in line what all Atheists want... a universe and
living being's created through accident's in nature.

coupling this idea with the idea that the earth was a different kind of environment billions of
years ago... that it was some kind of chemical factory working haphazardly churning out " all the
right stuff " so that in eon's past absolute sterility produces life from elements that are not
alive.

billions of years times dead elements equal dead elements that are still not alive today.
somehow, only in their thinking, does time bring what is not alive to life.

in their thinking the earth of today is not the same as the earth was yesterday. remember that
' yesterday, ' in their view, is counted in billions of years and not just over the 13000 years old
it really is...

the only thing that these fellow's have shown is that man's effort's to find how life came from
elements that are not alive are futile by their best concocted ' scientific ' experiments. all that
they could show is that no elements when mixed together produce other chemicals and out of sterility
no life is possible, especially in the environment of their experiments.

at least they knew enough not to put something alive into their little test tubes since it would
have been fried by the induced lightning bolts in their simulated primitive atmosphere and boiled to
death in their simulated boiling ocean. all they produced was exactly the folly of Evolution...
boiling oceans and burning atmosphere's do not produce life from elements that are not alive.

this is the Evolutionist's self-contradictory presuppositions : that non living elements boiled and
fried produce life. therefore, they set up their experiment in accordance with the un-scientific
idea of the Big Bang and Darwin's Evolution in view... two dead ends.

in review... ocean water is not alive; the atmosphere is not alive; lightning is not alive; a vacuum
is not alive; time is not alive... all of which means elements which are not alive do not magically
bring nonliving elements to life even when this early earth of their's supposedly cooled down.

furthermore, we know the earth is just over thirteen thousand years old by the only Book which
accurately and truthfully records the universe and man's beginning. and the same Book tells
truthfully where life came from, and that book is the Bible, the infallible Word of God. life comes
from the Living God.

the lifespan's of certain men and events are recorded there in the Bible and from Adam to Christ we
know the earth is but eleven thousand and a few years old, we also know from the Bible that life
comes from the One who is Life, the Living God.
Ken
2011-03-11 16:02:04 UTC
Permalink
How about YOU taking up this simple challenge?
Prove that your imaginary creatordog exists!
Why is it so hard for your creatiioNUTS to show us some/any real
proof, real evidence?

BTW--Quotes from your fairy tale book DOES NOT COUNT as evidence any
more that pictures from a comic book is evidence that Superman exists



.  
JimmyJohn
2011-03-11 20:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
according to this article. here we have an attempt to create life by
probably well meaning but inept scientist's hoping to find some way
to show how life might come from things that are not alive.
Scientists will keep trying, and eventually are quite likely to succeed
at creating life from non-living matter.

They have only been trying for a relatively shoert time. Nature had
millions of years to work at it, and I am sure humand will get it done
in less time thatn nature took.
--
Science is based directly on objective physical evidence,
and nothing that is not based directly on objective physical evidence
can be science.
bpuharic
2011-03-11 20:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
according to this article. here we have an attempt to create life by probably well meaning but inept
scientist's hoping to find some way to show how life might come from things that are not alive.
if they would have paused for a moment and concluded from their own ' science ' that nothing of and
no combination of the dead elements in the Periodic Table are alive they'd have understood that life
is not in things not alive ( duh ) and can not be made out of things not alive.
creationists didnt even know there WERE atoms. how can creationists
use an idea they didnt even know exist to prove their view of god?

they never tell us.
Post by old man joe
but boy's will be boy's and so they set up what from the outset was doomed to failure to answer the
question : " Where did life come from ? "
we dont know. that's the HONEST answser. to a creationist they just
make up an answer

one that has ALWAYS been wrong. it was wrong when they used it to
explain disease.

and its' wrong today
Post by old man joe
billions of years times dead elements equal dead elements that are still not alive today.
somehow, only in their thinking, does time bring what is not alive to life.
the laws of chemistry allow the synthesis of the molecules of life

but creationists dont admit that chemistry exists. or molecules.

creationists reject the idea of natural laws. that's why, in 2000
years, creationism made NO progress in explaining nature. n one

creationists worship the god of ignorance

Loading...