Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[YoursTrue]

You have just proven that you are absolute science illiterate, YoursTrue. Not only you are incompetent with biology, you are utterly clueless to science of chemistry and physics.

experiments are observation of evidence in laboratory environments, true, but they are still physical evidence, and often they matched the evidence that exist outside the laboratories. So the lab and non-lab evidence would often verify with each other.

so just because the Miller-Urey experiment occurred in the laboratory in 1952, doesn’t it make less of evidence. So your argument against such experiments are pathetically desperate and weak.

Beside that the chemical reactions in this experiment, although controlled, the chemical reactions are still natural processes, not magic or supernatural like that of the creation of Adam through transformation of non-living dust into a living “fully-grown” human being. In the case of Adam, that can only happen in myth or fairytale.

Also myth is the creation of Eve. You cannot naturally transform a rib in one moment, and fully-grown woman in the next moment.

I have noticed that some creationists here have argued that this is act of “cloning”. But apparently they don’t understand cloning, because for Eve to be a “clone” of Adam, Eve would have to be a man, not a woman.

All I see from every creationists, are apologetic excuses and, ignorant or fanciful claims with no sense of logic or reality. They have offer no alternative explanation of mechanism, just the “God did it” superstition. Not only creationists cannot present evidence to support their claims, they cannot even present some falsifiable hypotheses.

The Urey Miller experiment needed to have an electric current passed through the set up and also the requisite materials put out. It was contrived. Your use of the word creationist is somewhat similar to the word evolutionist, so I suggest you use another word because those believing in God's actions in the Genesis account do not always believe the same way. Best you don't use the word creationist.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have just proven that you are absolute science illiterate, YoursTrue. Not only you are incompetent with biology, you are utterly clueless to science of chemistry and physics.

experiments are observation of evidence in laboratory environments, true, but they are still physical evidence, and often they matched the evidence that exist outside the laboratories. So the lab and non-lab evidence would often verify with each other.

Beside that the chemical reactions in this experiment, although controlled, the chemical reactions are still natural processes, not magic or supernatural like that of the creation of Adam through transformation of non-living dust into a living “fully-grown” human being. In the case of Adam, that can only happen in myth or fairytale.
their claims, they cannot even present some falsifiable hypotheses.

There is no evidence showing that life now comes from non life naturally as you say, is there? If you can show evidence thereof that would be fine. And now that we're discussing it a little the Urey Miller experiment gathered equipment and chemicals and used electric current to pass through. Does anything like that happen on earth now? Naturally, of course.

 

[shunyadragon]

It has to do with considerations about the Flood, since some have said there isn't enough water to inundate the earth entirely. But there is, according to the Scriptures, water from above, on the surface, and below, which is said to have been unleashed. Are you sure the ark ended up on land at the end of the 40 days of deluge?

As described before by far most water is recycled in the Earth's crust, atmosphere, and oceans and is relatively constant over time. Over geologic time we lose some water to space, water is added through magma intrusion from the mantle at hot spots like Iceland and mid-ocean ridge intrusions.
The volcanoes around the ring of fire in the Pacific have magma with more water and gases than the hot spot volcanoes like Iceland, and Hawaiian volcanoes because the subduction zones carry more water down with the ocean floor sediment.

The Urey Miller experiment needed to have an electric current passed through the set up and also the requisite materials put out. It was contrived. Your use of the word creationist is somewhat similar to the word evolutionist, so I suggest you use another word because those believing in God's actions in the Genesis account do not always believe the same way. Best you don't use the word creationist.

You're still stuck in the rut of the past. It has long since not been considered significant in terms of abiogenesis. The following thread deals with contemporary research and discoveries concerning abiogenesis: Abiogenesis discoveries and research

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Urey Miller experiment needed to have an electric current passed through the set up and also the requisite materials put out. It was contrived. Your use of the word creationist is somewhat similar to the word evolutionist, so I suggest you use another word because those believing in God's actions in the Genesis account do not always believe the same way. Best you don't use the word creationist.

Then nature is "contrived". You see there are these storms where lightning occurs. That is an electrical current.

And why the false claim about " God's actions "? You can't even demonstrate any evidence for your version of God. That means that you have no way of knowing what he did or didn't do..

 

[YoursTrue]

Then nature is "contrived". You see there are these storms where lightning occurs. That is an electrical current.

And why the false claim about " God's actions "? You can't even demonstrate any evidence for your version of God. That means that you have no way of knowing what he did or didn't do..

You just don't get it. More correctly perhaps, you don't want to get it. But this may be one of the last responses I give you. The Urey-Miller experiment was not a "chance" meeting of elements. It was constructed, contrived. And you don't know if electricity was passed through the elements you believe were shocked (?) into life. That's all I will say now, have a good one and I'm probably going to pass on more of your posts.

 

[YoursTrue]

As described before by far most water is recycled in the Earth's crust, atmosphere, and oceans and is relatively constant over time. Over geologic time we lose some water to space, water is added through magma intrusion from the mantle at hot spots like Iceland and mid-ocean ridge intrusions.
The volcanoes around the ring of fire in the Pacific have magma with more water and gases than the hot spot volcanoes like Iceland, and Hawaiian volcanoes because the subduction zones carry more water down with the ocean floor sediment.

You're still stuck in the rut of the past. It has long since not been considered significant in terms of abiogenesis. The following thread deals with contemporary research and discoveries concerning abiogenesis: Abiogenesis discoveries and research

Many bring up the Miller-Urey experiment as proof(?), evidence(?) that "life" came from a meeting (a chance meeting?) of nonliving matter and how? with electricity passing through them?

 

[shunyadragon]

Many bring up the Miller-Urey experiment as proof(?), evidence(?) that "life" came from a meeting (a chance meeting?) of nonliving matter and how? with electricity passing through them?

Many bring up ?!?!? Not scientists. Only fundamentalist Christians like you. It is only a pointer for further research nothing more. There is no such thing as proof in science. In my references in the thread cited below none of the articles mentioned Miller-Urey. It is similar to the current published research on evolution there is no mention of Charles Darwin.

This is not remotely the subject of this thread,

Again my thread covers the current research on abiogenesis published in the past 15 years.. . .

Abiogenesis discoveries and research

In a thread on Noah's Arc the inability to respond coherently to the impossibility of the flood and the construction of the Arc it was decided to change the topic to Abiogenesis loaded with all the blue smoke and mirrors and 'arguing from ignorance' posts. Like all science, there are unanswered...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[shunyadragon]

You just don't get it. More correctly perhaps, you don't want to get it. But this may be one of the last responses I give you. The Urey-Miller experiment was not a "chance" meeting of elements. It was constructed, contrived. And you don't know if electricity was passed through the elements you believe were shocked (?) into life. That's all I will say now, have a good one and I'm probably going to pass on more of your posts.

The Urey-Miller experiment is barely relevant to the current research on abiogenesis regardless of how many times you repeat it. The only thing it demonstrated is that lightning in a primitive atmosphere could produce amino acids nothing more nothing less. At present, there are many possible sources of amino acids.

Not even the subject of the thread,

Refer to my thread for the current research: Abiogenesis discoveries and research

 

[shunyadragon]

Many bring up the Miller-Urey experiment as proof(?), evidence(?) that "life" came from a meeting (a chance meeting?) of nonliving matter and how? with electricity passing through them?

Actually Urey-Miller got it wrong concerning the atmosphere in the early earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just don't get it. More correctly perhaps, you don't want to get it. But this may be one of the last responses I give you. The Urey-Miller experiment was not a "chance" meeting of elements. It was constructed, contrived. And you don't know if electricity was passed through the elements you believe were shocked (?) into life. That's all I will say now, have a good one and I'm probably going to pass on more of your posts.

I get it. You don't. It was not contrived. When you say silly things like that you only tell others that you have no clue what you are talking about.

One more time, when you do not understand ask questions. Do not make it worse for yourself by telling falsehoods.

The Miller Urey experiment was designed to mimic the early Earth environment. Now tell me, what parts do you not understand? Try to be honest. Here is a way that you can double check yourself. If you do not realize that the experiment was very successful, then you do not understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually Urey-Miller got it wrong concerning the atmosphere in the early earth.

Yep. They did. And it was rerun with several different atmospheres. They kept being successful.

An interesting discovery is that they included one correct element that was needed by mistake.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yep. They did. And it was rerun with several different atmospheres. They kept being successful.

An interesting discovery is that they included one correct element that was needed by mistake.

The bottom line is this experiment's results were not the basis of contemporary research on abiogenesis.

See post #5 Abiogenesis discoveries and research

for the result of more contemporary research concerning the organic molecules necessary for life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bottom line is this experiment's results were not the basis of contemporary research on abiogenesis.

See post #5 Abiogenesis discoveries and research

for the result of more contemporary research concerning the organic molecules necessary for life.

I know. It in no way "proves" abiogenesis. It was just the first baby step experiment in abiogenesis. Yet it was very successful. At that time it was thought by many that only life could produce amino acids. And no amino acids means no abiogenesis. If a person cannot be honest enough to admit that such a baby step, which again does not "prove" abiogenesis was successful, there is no way that they will ever be honest enough to own up the much more complicated chemistry that modern researchers are working on is successful.

I also asked a teaser question about that they accidentally got right. It turns out that it was the glass flask. In one experiment they used teflon instead of glass because it is almost totally chemically inert. The experiment failed. That caused a reanalysis of earlier experiments and they realized that the combination of glass and the basic water, the first experiment had a pH of 8.7, they found that the glass reacts a bit with the reagents. Now the question arises: Does that make the experiments invalid? It turns out no. Glass is basically a silicate. And silicates are almost everywhere in geology. A lack of silicates would not reflect reality. You can read more here:

Redo of a Famous Experiment on the Origins of Life Reveals Critical Detail Missed for Decades

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the conditions of early Earth could be simulated in a glass flask. New research finds the flask itself played an underappreciated, though outsize, role.

www.scientificamerican.com

As I said, by luck they included an item in the experiment that was necessary by luck,

 

[shunyadragon]

I know. It in no way "proves" abiogenesis. It was just the first baby step experiment in abiogenesis. Yet it was very successful. At that time it was thought by many that only life could produce amino acids. And no amino acids means no abiogenesis. If a person cannot be honest enough to admit that such a baby step, which again does not "prove" abiogenesis was successful, there is no way that they will ever be honest enough to own up the much more complicated chemistry that modern researchers are working on is successful.

I also asked a teaser question about that they accidentally got right. It turns out that it was the glass flask. In one experiment they used teflon instead of glass because it is almost totally chemically inert. The experiment failed. That caused a reanalysis of earlier experiments and they realized that the combination of glass and the basic water, the first experiment had a pH of 8.7, they found that the glass reacts a bit with the reagents. Now the question arises: Does that make the experiments invalid? It turns out no. Glass is basically a silicate. And silicates are almost everywhere in geology. A lack of silicates would not reflect reality. You can read more here:

Redo of a Famous Experiment on the Origins of Life Reveals Critical Detail Missed for Decades

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the conditions of early Earth could be simulated in a glass flask. New research finds the flask itself played an underappreciated, though outsize, role.

www.scientificamerican.com

As I said, by luck they included an item in the experiment that was necessary by luck,

Note 'NEW RESEARCH' we need to move beyond Urey-Miller, just like evolution needs move past Charles Darwin.

Your skill in the rut posting in Noah's flood flogging a dead horse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Note 'NEW RESEARCH' we need to move beyond Urey-Miller, just like evolution needs move past Charles Darwin.

Your skill in the rut posting in Noah's flood flogging a dead horse.

I have posted more modern findings but it is like talking to a brick wall. The idea is to get them to work their way into it. I have posted on how many of the problems, but not all, have been solved. That has never done one bit of good. But to be honest, they will not even accept the simple ideas that are not in the least bit controversial.

It is like trying to teach AGW deniers the Greenhouse Effect. It has been well understood for over a hundred years, but when they realize that it is associated with understanding climate change they are having none of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Urey Miller experiment needed to have an electric current passed through the set up and also the requisite materials put out.

So?

It was contrived.

Not any more or less "contrived" then water turning into ice in a freezer.
How about amino acids in space rocks? Did alien scientists "contrive them" and put them there?

Your use of the word creationist is somewhat similar to the word evolutionist, so I suggest you use another word because those believing in God's actions in the Genesis account do not always believe the same way. Best you don't use the word creationist.

Ok. Let's just call them "science deniers" then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no evidence showing that life now comes from non life naturally as you say, is there?

Abiogenesis discoveries and research

In a thread on Noah's Arc the inability to respond coherently to the impossibility of the flood and the construction of the Arc it was decided to change the topic to Abiogenesis loaded with all the blue smoke and mirrors and 'arguing from ignorance' posts. Like all science, there are unanswered...

www.religiousforums.com

If you can show evidence thereof that would be fine.

Abiogenesis discoveries and research

In a thread on Noah's Arc the inability to respond coherently to the impossibility of the flood and the construction of the Arc it was decided to change the topic to Abiogenesis loaded with all the blue smoke and mirrors and 'arguing from ignorance' posts. Like all science, there are unanswered...

www.religiousforums.com

And now that we're discussing it a little the Urey Miller experiment gathered equipment and chemicals and used electric current to pass through.

So?

Does anything like that happen on earth now? Naturally, of course.

Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You just don't get it. More correctly perhaps, you don't want to get it.

The Urey-Miller experiment was not a "chance" meeting of elements. It was constructed, contrived.

So is a freezer. Does that make ice an artificial thing that can't occur in nature?

And you don't know if electricity was passed through the elements you believe were shocked (?) into life.

You once again, unsurprisingly, succesfully miss the point.
What the experiments shows is that there ARE processes that have amino acids as output.
It demonstrates that amino acids CAN form spontanously in nature and require no "creation entity" Macgyvering them.

It shows that complex amino acids can form through chemical reactions from simple precurser molecules like methane and amonia.
Also, it doesn't necessarily require electricity as a trigger. Ultra-violet radiation accomplishes the same. And likely other sources of energy just as well.

But hey, it's all "contrived" right?

That's all I will say now, have a good one and I'm probably going to pass on more of your posts.

As if you didn't ignore his posts till now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Urey-Miller experiment is barely relevant to the current research on abiogenesis regardless of how many times you repeat it.

True. However, for me the point is not even its impact (or lack thereof) on abiogenesis research.
It rather is the very notion of experimentation and controlled environments.

Their "objection" to this experiment has little to do with the actual outcome.
Their "objection" rather is that they think this means that amino acids were "artificially created".

Following this logic, water turning into ice in a freezer makes ice artifical and "contrived".

 

[shunyadragon]

True. However, for me the point is not even its impact (or lack thereof) on abiogenesis research.
It rather is the very notion of experimentation and controlled environments.

Their "objection" to this experiment has little to do with the actual outcome.
Their "objection" rather is that they think this means that amino acids were "artificially created".

Following this logic, water turning into ice in a freezer makes ice artifical and "contrived".

True. However, for me the point is not even its impact (or lack thereof) on abiogenesis research.
It rather is the very notion of experimentation and controlled environments.

Their "objection" to this experiment has little to do with the actual outcome.
Their "objection" rather is that they think this means that amino acids were "artificially created".

Following this logic, water turning into ice in a freezer makes ice artificial and "contrived".

These objections to the Christian view of the Urey-Miller experiment is valid, but beating a dead horse to death in a Noah's Arc thread is not the way to go. Contemporary discoveries and research are far more relevant in the abiogenesis thread.

It is very similar to the fundamentalists beating up on Darwin concerning evolution when science has gone long beyond Charles Darwin in the History books of science.