The lies behind the Miller experiment

The Miller experiment did not prove anything.The miller experiment may be fifty years old, but it is still one of the most prominent arguments for evolution. It even looks true at first glance. Miller did his famous experiment 1953 with a bunch of test tubes and a mini tesla coil that he used to simulate lightning on a sphere of gasses that he thought represented the early atmosphere. The atmosphere that miller used was a hydrogen rich mixture of hydrogen, methane, and water vapor. This atmosphere, when sparked constantly in the same place for a week, (a lightning bolt is much shorter than one second) created amino acids. This is still in textbooks (including mine) today. Creating amino acids sounds good, until you learn that these amino acids had to be individually contained while they formed so that all the poisonous tar that that the experiment made would not kill them, making it most definitely un-natural.Here is a bigger problem with the experiment: the correct atmosphere was not used. Both Creationist and Darwinist scientists agree that early earth’s atmosphere was not hydrogen rich. The experiment has been tested again with the correct atmosphere and this time formed life-forming organic molecules cyanide, and formaldehyde. At least that’s what my science book says. Fine. I’ll accept that they both contain carbon, and thus can be called organic. However, Cyanide life-giving? Ya right. Let’s talk about these two elements for a second. First, Cyanide is not some instant life giver. No you can’t Just Add Lightning! to get life. Cyanide is actually the stuff that makes up suicide pills! Why use Cyanide? The government uses cyanide because it is so poisonous that it can instantly kill a human with no pain. It is almost the same with formaldehyde. This compound cannot even be opened up in a lab with out major equipment to protect all living cells. They also use this element in china for abortions. Here’s the funny part; when you combine both of them, you get embalming fluid!(edited to merger post 3 into the OP)This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-04-2004 10:17 AMThis message has been edited by JESUS freak, 11-04-2004 03:42 PM

Fine I've never requested a topic before.The miller experiment may be fifty years old, but it is still one of the most prominent arguments for evolution. It even looks true at first glance. Miller did his famous experiment 1953 with a bunch of test tubes and a mini tesla coil that he used to simulate lightning on a sphere of gasses that he thought represented the early atmosphere. The atmosphere that miller used was a hydrogen rich mixture of hydrogen, methane, and water vapor. This atmosphere, when sparked constantly in the same place for a week, (a lightning bolt is much shorter than one second) created amino acids. This is still in textbooks (including mine) today. Creating amino acids sounds good, until you learn that these amino acids had to be individually contained while they formed so that all the poisonous tar that that the experiment made would not kill them, making it most definitely un-natural.Here is a bigger problem with the experiment: the correct atmosphere was not used. Both Creationist and Darwinist scientists agree that early earth’s atmosphere was not hydrogen rich. The experiment has been tested again with the correct atmosphere and this time formed life-forming organic molecules cyanide, and formaldehyde. At least that’s what my science book says. Fine. I’ll accept that they both contain carbon, and thus can be called organic. However, Cyanide life-giving? Ya right. Let’s talk about these two elements for a second. First, Cyanide is not some instant life giver. No you can’t Just Add Lightning! to get life. Cyanide is actually the stuff that makes up suicide pills! Why use Cyanide? The government uses cyanide because it is so poisonous that it can instantly kill a human with no pain. It is almost the same with formaldehyde. This compound cannot even be opened up in a lab with out major equipment to protect all living cells. They also use this element in china for abortions. Here’s the funny part; when you combine both of them, you get embalming fluid!

Yes I am, at least in EVERY non-Christian text book that talks about it. And the media (popoular science, Feb 2004)

First, I have read that it is, though this may be incorrect. Second if we evolved from such orginisms that wern't poisend by it, would't that be going backwards in evoloution for that to be now hazerdous for us humans? Yet we are "evolved" from them in other ways. Is there any advantage in having cyanide be extreamly poisonous to us humans, the "pinacle of evolution?"

I think that it is a part of evoloution, but whatever my opinion is about it, the miller-urly experiment is being used extensively to premote evoloution everywhere from my textbooks to National Geograpic

What I have understood is that you evolve because you are better as a result of natual selection.

I have looked into this in multiple places a bit back and what I read said that the experiment created almost all tar. They realized this and filtered it out so the amino acids could live.To anwser your second question, Biology is next year. I have another year of earth science, ug, and the miller experiment is talked about in chapter 22, section four of Glencoe Mcgraw-Hill "Earth Science;Geology,The Enviroment and the Universe", copyright 2002
ISBN 0-07-821591-9

You are correct and I have not been clear about what I have said. The method that was tested false by the miller experiment is needed to create even somthing that might be called life. That is, short of a fusion reaction that happened to fuse the atoms of life together.

Depends what you mean. I have read many biology textbooks and books written by authors on both sides of the evoloution issue. Older does not mean smarter, though I do acnolage that they know the deffinitions and the tehnical aspects of most small theorys. I have spent my time studying the general items that are needed to make fools out of my teachers. And yes I have been through a very rudimentary biology course.

Yes thank you, but my point still stands that whether or not the miller experiment has to do with evoloution, it is being used that way.

Fine. doubt me This is how I spend my time, and for what I have had to do before this site, the knolage has proved to be quite enough to make anyone who believes in this theory stutter.

yes I will when I have the time.

yes this is it

good I can be the first at something. I have not said evoloution is wrong in this forum. I have said that the miller experiment is being used as a basis of fact along with a bunch of other things that are not the topic of this forum to premote the theory of evolution. Not to mention the fact that the miller experiment was a failere.

Most books being a key word. I try at least to avoid those. Papers published by professors is a better sorce of data for me.