On Evolution & Creation

[IndigoChild5559]

That is false. There have been quite a few such experiments with positive results. The most well-known experiment related to abiogenesis is the Miller-Urey experiment which demonstrated the possibility of creating organic molecules like amino acids, the building blocks of life, from inorganic compounds under conditions simulating early Earth's atmosphere, using a mixture of gases like methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor with electrical discharges to mimic lightning strikes.

The Miler-Urey experiment has been replicated dozens of times and the results are consistent

No offense here. I'm a great advocate of science. But an amino acid is not a life form. The question was whether scientists had managed yet to form life from non-life. That day may come, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Argentbear]

The miller urey experiment shows that given a set of contrived circumstances and passing an electric charge through the substances, things change.

Change from inorganic to organic

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The miller urey experiment shows that given a set of contrived circumstances and passing an electric charge through the substances, things change.

"contrived"?
"things change"?

Sounds like you are doing your best to obfuscate in order to not acknowledge the obvious

 

[icant]

The Miler-Urey experiment has been replicated dozens of times and the results are consistent

I have never heard of any experiment that produced a life form.

So yes they were consistent in that they all failed.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

Sounds like you are doing your best to obfuscate in order to not acknowledge the obvious

It is obvious to me that ALL experiments failed and none since then has produced a life form.

Enjoy,

 

[Argentbear]

I have never heard of any experiment that produced a life form.

So yes they were consistent in that they all failed.

Enjoy,

"life forms" is a case of moving the goalposts.

The experiment was not a failure and shows that you are wrong about "zero results."

 

[Audie]

"contrived"?
"things change"?

Sounds like you are doing your best to obfuscate in order to not acknowledge the obvious

Yup

 

[YoursTrue]

"life forms" is a case of moving the goalposts.

The experiment was not a failure and shows that you are wrong about "zero results."

No, it's really not except that I suppose you think so. Oh, and some others might think so. as well. Because scientifically speaking, of course, either life came from non-life or -- it did not.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...)

Evolution is to take an absence of life and create a living something.

Sorry, but that is quite wrong. Evolution is not abiogenesis.

That has never happened except in someone's imagination.

That is hard to tell one way or another, but the research does suggest that abiogenesis may very well have happened.

Personally, I fully expect that it did.

Evolution, on the other hand, is extremely well demonstrated and can't really be doubted rationally.

Once you have a living something the evolution can begin to take place. Darwin even said he did not know how many creatures God started with in his original Origin of the Species.

Enjoy

Yeah. Darwin is often accused of being somehow opposed to Christianity or to theism, and that is a very undeserved charge.

 

[YoursTrue]

"life forms" is a case of moving the goalposts.

The experiment was not a failure and shows that you are wrong about "zero results."

Wasn't there a mushy blue fuzz generated via the Miller-Urey construction?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but that is quite wrong. Evolution is not abiogenesis.



That is hard to tell one way or another, but the research does suggest that abiogenesis may very well have happened.

Personally, I fully expect that it did.

Evolution, on the other hand, is extremely well demonstrated and can't really be doubted rationally.



Yeah. Darwin is often accused of being somehow opposed to Christianity or to theism, and that is a very undeserved charge.

It has been said that Darwin had become an atheist with regard to the Christian God but he was never a declared atheist in the full sense of the word. Seems he maintained some sort of belief in a god of sort.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Evolution is to take an absence of life and create a living something.

You are confused. What you described is abiogenesis, and is a completely different thing.

Evolution only happens once life already exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

It has been said that Darwin had become an atheist with regard to the Christian God but he was never a declared atheist in the full sense of the word. Seems he maintained some sort of belief in a god of sort.

I am not aware of any indication that he was ever an atheist of any sort.

Not that it matters.

 

[icant]

"life forms" is a case of moving the goalposts.

The experiment was not a failure and shows that you are wrong about "zero results."

So since you want to play a semantics game I will rephrase.

Did the experiments produce LIFE?

If your answer is no then tell me what the experiments were looking to achieve, by performing them?

The experiments did fail to produce life PERIOD. That means they got zero results of forming life.

Enjoy,

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not aware of any indication that he was ever an atheist of any sort.

Not that it matters.

Most interesting article about Darwin and his withdrawal from his early religious education. Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia.

 

[YoursTrue]

So since you want to play a semantics game I will rephrase.

Did the experiments produce LIFE?

If your answer is no then tell me what the experiments were looking to achieve, by performing them?

The experiments did fail to produce life PERIOD. That means they got zero results of forming life.

Enjoy,

I wonder what happened to the substance produced in the Miller-Urey lab.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not aware of any indication that he was ever an atheist of any sort.

Not that it matters.

It matters to thinking people.

 

[LuisDantas]

It matters to thinking people.

Hey, are you sure you want to present yourself as that sort of person?

It is both unnecessary and harmful to you.

 

[icant]

You are confused. What you described is abiogenesis, and is a completely different thing.

Evolution only happens once life already exists.

I am not confused at all. I am a farm boy and we caused evolution to take place by selective breeding.
So, I believe life forms can evolve upward and I also believe life forms can do the opposite and degenerate.

I don't care anything about evolution it happens to life forms after they exist.
If you can't start life from non-life you don't have anything to evolve.

So far Science is batting zero on producing life from non-life. Whether you like it or lump it that's a fact Indigo.

Enjoy,

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not confused at all. I am a farm boy and we caused evolution to take place by selective breeding.
So, I believe life forms can evolve upward and I also believe life forms can do the opposite and degenerate.

I don't care anything about evolution it happens to life forms after they exist.
If you can't start life from non-life you don't have anything to evolve.

So far Science is batting zero on producing life from non-life. Whether you like it or lump it that's a fact Indigo.

Enjoy,

Nope. You are categorically confused.

Both about what biological evolution is (it does not happen "upward" nor "in reverse") and about how abiogenesis factors in there (it doesn't really).

Evolution is a demonstrable and well-documented fact. Abiogenesis is so far speculative (although increasingly supported by evidence).

And what is that about "batting zero"? Are you confused about what science is as well? It would appear so.