what with creationism on the rise and Darwinism bineg forced to defend itself yet again I want to look back further. An argument I have heard several times is that if evolution were correct how could life have started, it cant have just evolved from nothing, something had to create life for it to evolve from there. Well I wish to direct your attention to an experiment carried out in the 1950's by Miller and Urey. We have determined what the atmoshpere was like 3.5 Billion years ago and the two of them simulated these conditions in a special chamber, they then passed a series of sparks(simulating the lightning which would be all too common in those conditions) through the mixture of gasses. After several days they detected newly formed organic compounds, now I am not sure what these compounds were but the simple fact that organic matter(which was not present before the experiment) was discovered after carrying it out provides evidence as to how life began. remember, cells are formed from a series of organic compounds working in unison.
yea but yea but that's been proven to be bull crap we now know the atmosphere was nothing like that (i can find what it was really like if you'd like-- i have a book about it) so that experiment couldn't have worked. besides, the spark didn't just happen, someone made it happen (intelligent design). ironic?
*sigh* The scientists who carried out the experiment created the spark because they didn't want to have to suspend their test tube in the air and wait for a thunderstorm.
If you could direct me to the paper published that debunks the work carried out, I'd be happy to consider it. Any moron can publish a book saying 'I think that's a load of rubbish', an unnamed publication doesn't cut any ice with me unless you can show me that it has been properly peer reviewed before publication, and present me with the article for me to study myself. And before you say that the original poster didn't present the article in which the result he mentioned was published, I would have asked for it, except that I've already read it.
Where'd the atsmosphere come from? Are you saying that God put the atmosphere there, and then God used evolution to make life? Or are you just leaving this question for another day?
you know though i suppose when it comes down to it, if you want answers badly enough, you'll believe anything.
k alright, give me a little i gotta finish my english homework before I can go search my room for the book. It's called "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel if you want to read into it. It's basically him interviewing tons of professors and scientists both for and against creationism. I'll quote the book (or rather the scientist he interviewed) in a bit.
Well one you seen in religion.... God was at a party and drank alot at the party. Well, he was contacted by a girl he hardly knew, she told him she was pregnant with his kid. Nine months later, life started. And science's view... BANG!
I always seem to get back to the same question, "what started it all?" Logically, "that which started it all" had to always be in existence. Should this entity be called "God.?" Not necessarily. Should all-knowing powers be attributed to this entity? Not necessarily. Should this entity be deemed "all powerful" because it started it all? Not necessarily. These characteristics have been attributed to this entity by human beings. Whether these characteristics will ultimately be found to be true remains to be seen (or not) Buddha never really addressed the issue of what started it all, because he did not deem it to be particularly relevant to what he was trying to achieve...the elimination of suffering through the experience of oneness. It is possible to believe that we are all interconnected as an indivisible "one" without believing in a deity. Bottom line, enjoy life. Do the right thing (and you know what the right thing is most of the time). Be good to other people and kick ass when needed. Keep it simple...
Yes, I thought it might be something like that. In my opinion, a text intended to convince someone to believe in something for which there can be no strict proof is not useful as a reference in a scientific context. If you referenced that within the scientific community, you'd be laughed at until you returned to dust.
Please not again! "I was initially very excited when i first read this book because i thought that the information presented was new. However, not long after finishing the book, and after a small amount of online researching, I was dissappointed to find out that many of the 'experts' that Strobel interviews are not widely accepted as experts at all. Many of the biological arguments put forward are not that new and most have been countered by quite damning rebuffs." from a review on Amazon. Have you done those quick internet searches yet? If not it might be advisable to do them before trying to use them to convince others of the strength of your argument.
pff pff, im 16. they wouldn't take me seriously anyway haha. i realize it's not a formal article or anything, but the scientist and professors interviewed in the book have published their findings or beliefs or whatever you want to call them in scholarly articles as all good scientists do. I'm not one for science class, so I haven't really looked into it. Biology bored me to death. I doubt I'd be interested in reading these reports... what this book does is summarize all of these people's findings (whether for or against creationism) and brings them all together at the end. I dunno, I think it's good stuff. I haven't finished the book yet. Maybe you would want to look into it? Easy read -- huge scientific words which go over my head are put into lay-man's terms
I doubt the were the same 'beliefs' that they are credited with in the book. I suspect what they say will be taken out of context. And are the published papers in respected journals? And are they on the same topic they are offering their opinion on in the book?
miller experiment: I'm gonna quote the section of the book on the Miller experiment. He's analyzing what he calls "icons" of evolution which point towards Darwinism. He's interviewing Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD and it's the first interview in the book. Here's what he has to say about the Miller experiment: " Obviously, the significance of Miller's experiment--which to this day is still featured in many biology textbooks--hinges on whether he used an atmosphere that accurately simulated the environment of the early earth. At the time, Miller was relying heavily on the atmospheric theories of his doctoral advisor, Nobel laureate Harold Urey. 'What's the best scientific assessment today?' I asked Wells. 'Did Miller use the correct atmosphere or not?' Wells leaned back in his chair. 'Well, nobody knows for sure what the early atmosphere was lie, but the consensus is that the atmosphere was not at all like the one Miller used,' he began. 'Miller chose a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, which was consistent with what many scientists thought back then. But scientists don't believe that anymore. As a geophysicist with the Carnegie Institution said in the 1960s, 'What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.' 'By the mid-1970s, Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was declaring that the concept behind Miller's theory of the early atmosphere 'has been abandoned.' Two of the leading origin-of-life researchers, Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox, confirmed that Miller had used the wrong gas mixture. And Science magazine said in 1995 that experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because 'the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.'' I asked, 'What's the current thinking of scientists concerning the gas content of the early earth?' 'The best hypothesis now is that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space. Instead, the atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor,' Wells said. 'So my gripe is that textbooks still present the Miller experiment as though it reflected the earth's early environment, when most geochemists since the 1960s would say it was totally unlike Miller's.' I asked the next logical question: 'What happens if you replay the experiment using an accurate atmosphere?' 'I'll tell you this: you do not get amino acids, that's for sure,' he replied. 'Some textbooks fudge by saying, well, even if you use a realistic atmosphere, you still get organic molecules, as if that solves the problem.' Actually, that sounded promising. 'Organic molecules?' I said. 'I'm not a biochemist, but couldn't those be precursors to life?' Wells recoiled. 'That's what they sound like, but do you know what they are? Formaldehyde, Cyanide!' he declared, his voice rising for emphasis. 'They may be organic molecules, but in my lab at Berkeley you couldn't even have a capped bottle of formaldehyde in the room, because the stuff is so toxic. You open the bottle and it fries proteins all over the place, just from the funes. It kills embryos. The idea that using a realistic atmosphere gets you the first step in the origin of life is just laughable. 'Now, it's true that a good organic chemist can turn formaldehyde and cyanide into biological molecules. But to suggest that formaldehyde and cyanide give you the right to substrate for the origin of life,' he said, breaking into a chuckle, 'Well, it's just a joke.' He let the point sink in before delivering the clincher. 'Do you know what you get?' he asked. 'Embalming fluid!'" (uhm...Strobel 37) however the crap i have to document that so i dont get arrested lol. Anyway, sorry for any typos I was looking down as I typed it. That's just what Wells has to say against it. After the section (which has more interviews) it says:: "FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE More Resources on This Topic Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, Md.: Adler & Adler, 1986 Hanegraaff, Hank. The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution . Nashville: Word, 1998 Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter- Varsity Press, second edition, 1993 Wells, Jonathan. Icons of Evolution . Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000" Obviously, Wells, Jonathan is the dude he interviewed. I know this book isn't the end all and be all for scientific evidence against evolution, but it points in that direction.
Anomandaris, they're called amino acids, and they're the building blocks of DNA. Preparingto die, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html 've not had a chance to read this site yet since being passed the link by a friend but i think it does a good job of debunking the book. Put it down and read this, it's written in a nice layman friendly format and was on the reading list for my course. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...210/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_2_11/026-1047996-1397228 Moony
Science unlike religion doesn’t claim to have all the answers (yet), but I for one prefer the fact that with science I can be sure of the things it does have answers for, rather than follow religion and be unsure about everything.
You know, I'm not so sure that Darwinism and Creationism are as mutually exclusive as many people think. Christians often attack Darwinism and try to poke holes in it. They'll point out that the fossil record isn't complete, for example. But let's suppose that some Christian has come up with irrefutable proof that Darwinism is false, what would it prove? It would prove that evolution was false! It wouldn't prove that divine creation was true. It's a conceivable possibility that life wasn't divinely created, but that Darwinism simply didn't give an accurate answer as to how it actually was created. In short, proving Darwinism (or evolution) false, doesn't necessarily prove Creation true. Scientists seem to have a similar problem. They can conduct all the experiments they want. The problem is, no matter how deep they go, they can't prove that the whole thing hasn't been put there by some form of divine intelligence in the first place. Even if some scientist was able to account for every single mutation of every species and prove that it really was down to chance, it still wouldn't prove that the whole thing wasn't set up by some god in the first place. In short, proving Darwinism (or evolution) true, doesn't necessarily prove Creation false. Just my thoughts.
Publishing work is one thing, having them accepted is another. How can you discredit something you no nothing about? At the very least learn about biology, and then argue it. One of the many books by Richard Dawkins might be a good start.
