Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[Little Dragon]

The Milken experiment is a disaster for evolutionists. Why the deception.

It proved that the ammonia and methane atmosphere combined with the liquid water ocean of the proto earth could spontaneously generate amino acids, if provided an energy source, electricity/lightning.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It proved that the ammonia and methane atmosphere combined with the liquid water ocean of the proto earth could spontaneously generate amino acids, if provided an energy source, electricity/lightning.

But that is not a very large specific sequence of different types of amino acids.
Big fail there/

 

[Little Dragon]

Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?

I think you will find that the theory of evolution via natural selection does not rest on some drawings. Genetics anatomy and histology etc certainly.

 

[Little Dragon]

But that is not a very large specific sequence of different types of amino acids.
Big fail there/

What did you want? Jellyfish?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What did you want? Jellyfish?

Is that your answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The word fowl at the time always meant a flying animal but not insects.

Prove it.

The Milken experiment is a disaster for evolutionists. Why the deception.

The what?

Beware of the old con “the building blocks of life”. Why the deception?

How was that a con?

Not just Nebraska man.

He was not a fraud. He was a mistake, and it was only the popular press that gave him any credibility. That is why you are told to find proper sources. Scientists never accepted him.

Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?

His drawings were actually very accurate. You do not even know what he did wrong. But besides the minor thing that he did wrong, and he did do something wrong, his science was not right. But he was close. That is why we still see embryos, his are only used as history, not as evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Prove it.


The what?

How was that a con?

He was not a fraud. He was a mistake, and it was only the popular press that gave him any credibility. That is why you are told to find proper sources. Scientists never accepted him.


His drawings were actually very accurate. You do not even know what he did wrong. But besides the minor thing that he did wrong, and he did do something wrong, his science was not right. But he was close. That is why we still see embryos, his are only used as history, not as evidence.

Sorry the Miller experiment, which was a disaster for evolution.

The apparatus was designed not random.
It did not represent the Earth's early atmosphere.
Products were 50-50 racemic not all left handed.
There were no long chains.
Only a few types of amino acids were produced.
And products were removed into a trap quickly to keep them from being destroyed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that is not a very large specific sequence of different types of amino acids.
Big fail there/

No. There was no fail at all. That was not the purpose of the experiment. The experiment was very successful.

Okay, it is obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about. The Miller Urey experiment was designed to see if amino acids could form naturally. That is all. At that time it was thought that they could only be made by existing life. We now know that to be wrong since there are several sources of amino acids. But if that was true, which it as not, then abiogenesis would have been impossible.

Some people over state the Miller Urey experiment. It is evidence for abiogenesis since it refuted an old wrong idea. But a theory is needs a lot more than just one solitary piece of evidence.


Let's use an analogy outside of evolution. Let's say that there is a murder trial. The defense tires to argue that the defendant was out of town and could not have committed the murder. The prosecution shows that he was in town. Now is that evidence for the prosecution? Yes. Does it prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty? Not even close. It takes more than one tiny piece of evidence to convict someone.

What the Miller Urey experiment is is a test of deniers of science. If they deny that it is evidence then they are clearly being dishonest. Oh,, and if someone supporting abiogenesis tries to claim that it is "proof" it also shows that that person has no clue.

You really should learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No. There was no fail at all. That was not the purpose of the experiment. The experiment was very successful.

Okay, it is obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about. The Miller Urey experiment was designed to see if amino acids could form naturally. That is all. At that time it was thought that they could only be made by existing life. We now know that to be wrong since there are several sources of amino acids. But if that was true, which it as not, then abiogenesis would have been impossible.

Some people over state the Miller Urey experiment. It is evidence for abiogenesis since it refuted an old wrong idea. But a theory is needs a lot more than just one solitary piece of evidence.


Let's use an analogy outside of evolution. Let's say that there is a murder trial. The defense tires to argue that the defendant was out of town and could not have committed the murder. The prosecution shows that he was in town. Now is that evidence for the prosecution? Yes. Does it prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty? Not even close. It takes more than one tiny piece of evidence to convict someone.

What the Miller Urey experiment is is a test of deniers of science. If they deny that it is evidence then they are clearly being dishonest. Oh,, and if someone supporting abiogenesis tries to claim that it is "proof" it also shows that that person has no clue.

You really should learn what is and what is not evidence.

Failure because it was not realistic, it did not produce the building block of life at all. Most amino acid types were missing and a 50-50 racemic will not lead to life.

 

[McBell]

Failure because it was not realistic, it did not produce the building block of life at all. Most amino acid types were missing and a 50-50 racemic will not lead to life.

Source please

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry the Miller experiment, which was a disaster for evolution.

The apparatus was designed not random.

So what? It would be pointless to design an apparatus at random.

It did not represent the Earth's early atmosphere.

It was thought to do so at the time. But you know what scientists did when they found out that they may have been wrong? The reran the experiment with different atmospheres. It was still successful.

Products were 50-50 racemic not all left handed.

So what? That is a separate problem. Yes, it was a problem for abiogenesis. But guess what? I will see if you can finish that properly.

There were no long chains.

So what? That was not their goal.

Only a few types of amino acids were produced.

More than just a few. And other experiments have produced all of them.

And products were removed into a trap quickly to keep them from being destroyed.

Yes, that simulated another aspect of nature. Chemicals that would be deep enough underwater would not have been destroyed.

But of course we do not even need the Miller Urey experiment. Even the first one was successful since it showed that amino acids can form naturally. Since then at least two more sources and perhaps more have been found for amino acids. So yes, we do have the building blocks of life. We had plenty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source please

That was mostly correct. It was not just a "few amino acids". But the problem of chirality (the racemic mixture of chemicals) has more than one possible solution. It is an example of why we probably will never know the exact path of abiogenesis. There are several distinct problems of abiogenesis. Some have been found to have more than one natural solution. The problem of chirality could have been solved before the first life arose or after life existed. Right now we do not know which path was followed to our present state.

 

[blü 2]

Here is simple challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

I assume the "No Assumptions Allowed" rule applies to you as well?

You can yourself deduce from good evidence that the following are more than 6000 years old ─

The universe.
The sun.
The earth.
Life on earth.

I will soon post a thread that will refute billions of years and evolution.

Did you ever get round to acknowledging your error for that many times refuted "Irrefutable" claim you posted earlier?

Will this threatened refutation satisfy those who have actually studied and understand evolution?

Or does it depend on assumptions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Failure because it was not realistic, it did not produce the building block of life at all. Most amino acid types were missing and a 50-50 racemic will not lead to life.

No, sorry, but they found more than you seem to think. The original solutions were checked years later with more sensitive equipment and even more amino acids were there than first thought. And as you know others repeated the experiment. With better equipment and without the error of an atmosphere. They two found amino acids.

And even worse for you there are other sources. Like it or not it is evidence for abiogenesis. Is it "proof"? Not even close.


But there is reason that I won't give you sources for this. Abiogenesis is much harder to understand than evolution. That was why evolution was solved first. If you cannot understand why evolution is a fact you will never understand abiogenesis and I would be just wasting my time.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, sorry, but they found more than you seem to think. The original solutions were checked years later with more sensitive equipment and even more amino acids were there than first thought. And as you know others repeated the experiment. With better equipment and without the error of an atmosphere. They two found amino acids.

And even worse for you there are other sources. Like it or not it is evidence for abiogenesis. Is it "proof"? Not even close.


But there is reason that I won't give you sources for this. Abiogenesis is much harder to understand than evolution. That was why evolution was solved first. If you cannot understand why evolution is a fact you will never understand abiogenesis and I would be just wasting my time.

So not all need amino acids. Thanks.
And not all left handed.
without the first living creature there is no evolution.
Thus God created all things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So not all need amino acids. Thanks.
And not all left handed.
without the first living creature there is no evolution.
Thus God created all things.

What? You did not understand my post.

But I predicted that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What? You did not understand my post.

But I predicted that.

So not all the needed amino acids.
Not al left handed.
So not THE building blocks of life.
Still wrong environment.
Still products removed before being destroyed.
Still intelligently designed experiment.
Still no large amino acids strung together.
Yet still in some text books as the building blocks of life.
So still deception.

And,
Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?

Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So not all need amino acids. Thanks.

Nope, never claimed that never implied that. When you do not understand something you should ask questions.

And not all left handed.

Correct. That was changed later. Do you understand the concept of "later"?

without the first living creature there is no evolution.

True, but we know that there was a first living creature. That is not a problem.

Thus God created all things.

No, not at all. Now there is a first class non sequitur.

Even if abiogenesis is wrong evolution is still a fact. Do you understand that? Probably not. You can ask questions if you like.

And even if abiogenesis is wrong that still does not prove that a God did it. Much less your God. You would still need to prove out of all of the Gods out there that the vile, incompetent and evil version of God that you believe in is the one that did it. By the way, I did not just insult God. I did not even insult the Christian God. But I doubt if you can figure that one out either.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, never claimed that never implied that. When you do not understand something you should ask questions.


Correct. That was changed later. Do you understand the concept of "later"?


True, but we know that there was a first living creature. That is not a problem.

No, not at all. Now there is a first class non sequitur.

Even if abiogenesis is wrong evolution is still a fact. Do you understand that? Probably not. You can ask questions if you like.

And even if abiogenesis is wrong that still does not prove that a God did it. Much less your God. You would still need to prove out of all of the Gods out there that the vile, incompetent and evil version of God that you believe in is the one that did it. By the way, I did not just insult God. I did not even insult the Christian God. But I doubt if you can figure that one out either.

But you just used circular reasoning unless God created the first living thing. Here is your reasoning.
You wrote "we know that there was a first living creature." So because there are living things, the first living thing must have come into being so that there would be living things.

 

[Little Dragon]

Is that your answer?

You wont generate self replicating chemical systems from one tank of water and methane and ammonia, to very simplistically model our young planet. Maybe with a billion tanks over a billion years, you might get lucky.