The lies behind the Miller experiment

Would Kindergarten be better than Bootcamp?If that would make you feel better I am willing to campaign for the change?

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Apologies to the admins for the off-topic interjection, but I couldn't resist.To the best of my knowledge "camps" were an invention of the British in the Boer War (1899 - 1902) during the reign of Queen Victoria. You remember Queen Victoria - one of those British monarchs who you have previously claimed know they are directly descended from King David in fulfilment of a Biblical promise/prophecy ?So initially more Christian history than atheist history eh ?

---

Confused ? You will be...

I have laboriously answered all your points previously.Where can I re-answer them (with link) without being banned ?WT

Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forumI'd tread carefully if I were you. Be sure you address this question: If we moderators were truly outraged because your arguments were so effective that they couldn't be rebutted and we were completely stymied and wanted to prevent any further dissemination of your position, then why have we given you a forum to continue making your arguments? Why haven't we just banned you?I give you this caution because I suspect you're gearing up to argue, with lengthy examples, how effective your arguments were, which wouldn't address this question. The question grants, for the sake of discussion, that your arguments were incredibly effective and couldn't be rebutted. The question is actually asking why, if this is the case and we were stymied and outraged, we're still giving you free reign to continue disseminating your arguments?I can't make it any clearer than this. If when you respond you fail to address the actual question I will suspend your privileges with no reluctance or remorse. My self-interested advice is that you should just let this issue drop, because your history is that you can't address any issues about which you're emotional and so you'll be suspended, and since you have an avid set of opponents who apparently love debating you, I'll probably take a lot of heat when you go.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It took me awhile to find the magazine, but you wanted a quote, here it is:Popular Science February 2004 Mental Muscles of Steel
Primordial Soup
Could life have emerged from the conditions of early earth without divine intervention? In 1953 chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey of the University of Chicago filled a glass bulb with hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water to simulate the early atmosphere, then heated it with a Bunsen burner sun and battered it with electric lightning bolts. After a few weeks, the bulb held a reddish-brown soup containing amino acids-the key building blocks of life. Scientists now believe ammonia may not have been present in the early atmosphere, but updated studies sans ammonia have yielded similar results.Now, this quote from popular science does say a bit about miller’s atmosphere being a tad wrong, but it was a lot shorter than the two pages from my text book since I don’t have access to a scanner like you liberal rich freaks do. This quote has many thinks wrong however.1) First off, though the quote does say something about ammonia not being in the earth’s early atmosphere, it left out other thinks that Miller used that also were not.
a) Miller used a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, meaning the atmosphere was mostly hydrogen. Scientists now believe that little or no hydrogen was present in earth’s early atmosphere. Who’s leaving out facts now?
2) Secondly, Miller and Urey were careful to make sure that no oxygen got into their atmosphere. (quote from a middle school biology book used today) Of course they were careful to make sure no oxygen got in, as oxygen would have broken down the amino acids. However without oxygen, we would not have the atmosphere that we need. Without an atmosphere, no life could have lived, because not only would large meteorites always be striking the earth, but earth sans atmosphere could not have supported life because the UV rays from the sun would fry every living thing, if there was anything living, since no life yet existed.
a) Second, this is somewhat off topic, but even if the earth existed without oxygen back when life started, when and how did we get all of the oxygen and nitrogen that we have now? No other planets near us (or in our solar system for that matter) have nitrogen or oxygen to give us?
3) Similar results is a lie, as I explained in the topic message.

A much better try at carrying the discussion forward. Thank you.I'll leave it to others to point out detailed errors in your content.(well, no will power, just where was evolution mentioned there? )

JFYou still have not supported a lie. I don't believe it's a malicious act on your part, simply a lack of understanding and information.First, would you agree that Miller and Urey were using what they believed, at the time, might have been a likely early atmosphere?Second, you make many factualy errors in your summary. You say: No one is leaving out facts. The way science works, when new information is discovered it is incorporated into the body of knowledge. You have two major logical and literal errors there. First, without oxygen animal life might not be possible as we know it, but much other life would thrive. Second, when you then make the leap to no atmosphere you completely lose the point. The atmosphere has nothing to do with oxygen at all. An atmosphere can be made up or an gas. If there were no oxygen our atmosphere would still be almost identical to whatit is today, and would provide exactly the same protection from meteorites ( it provides almost no protection from meteors) and perhaps even better UV protection. Like most of our atmosphere from chemical recycling of other materials. Again, no, you have not explained how it is a lie.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi JESUS freak,I am very impressed. Nice job! Keep up the good work!About your book, scanning isn't necessary, just type in the paragraphs. Shouldn't take more than five minutes.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

1) First off, though the quote does say something about ammonia not being in the earth’s early atmosphere, it left out other thinks that Miller used that also were not.

---

And without ammonia other researchers were able to produce amino acids in similar fashion. It is a shame that the article did not include the other gases that were not present in Earth's early atmosphere but were present in Miller's experiment. However, this point needs to be made. Miller's experiment was constructed using the knowledge of his time. That is, the atmosphere in the Miller experiment reflected the 1950's theories on the Earth's early atmosphere. Miller was not trying to create an atmosphere that was easier to produce amino acids in. Rather, he was trying to use the most accurate models available to him. For that he should be rewarded, not bad-mouthed.

quote:

---

a) Miller used a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, meaning the atmosphere was mostly hydrogen. Scientists now believe that little or no hydrogen was present in earth’s early atmosphere. Who’s leaving out facts now?

---

If this was a scientific paper, it should have been included. However, this is an article for lay people such as yourself. It was not written for the scientific community. Also, further research without hydrogen has also yielded amino acids, so the point is really moot.

quote:

---

2) Secondly, Miller and Urey were careful to make sure that no oxygen got into their atmosphere. (quote from a middle school biology book used today) Of course they were careful to make sure no oxygen got in, as oxygen would have broken down the amino acids. However without oxygen, we would not have the atmosphere that we need. Without an atmosphere, no life could have lived, because not only would large meteorites always be striking the earth, but earth sans atmosphere could not have supported life because the UV rays from the sun would fry every living thing, if there was anything living, since no life yet existed.

---

Life can survive without oxygen. For early photosynthetic plants, oxygen was actually an overabundant by product and it was shed into the atmosphere. Also, some bacteria can't grow in the presence of oxygen. These types of bacteria are called strict anaerobes. In fact, these types of bacteria are actually killed by oxygen. I know because I grow them on a regular basis. Sorry, but oxygen is not a requirement for life.

quote:

---

a) Second, this is somewhat off topic, but even if the earth existed without oxygen back when life started, when and how did we get all of the oxygen and nitrogen that we have now? No other planets near us (or in our solar system for that matter) have nitrogen or oxygen to give us?

---

It was produced by photosynthetic single celled organisms, and later by mutlicellular photosynthetic organisms. It is a byproduct of making sugars from sunlight and carbon dioxide. What the organisms didn't need for respiration was shed into the atmosphere.I was also curious about your claim that the textbooks used the Miller experiment to support evolution. If this is true I will send an ugly email to the publishers on your behalf.

Before we pat him on the back - can I point out that he's not actually answered the question at all.Let's recap:CLAIM: That the Miller-urey experiment is being used to support evolution. CLAIM 2: That popular science and text books support this reading.Let's make this really really simple: in posts 3,8,9,10,33,37,42,66,67,70 you are claiming that the experiment is being used to support evolution. Can you support this claim?As for "liberal" - I'm nothing of the sort.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-18-2004 12:32 PM

He actually cited something! I'm overcome!Maybe jousting with WillowTree, Kendemyer and John Davison has lowered my expectations too far.Probably we should note that his Popular Science article is offering the Urey/Miller experiment in support of a natural origin of life, not evolution, just as we've been telling him all along.--Percy

I think what might be part of the problem here is that JF might just be afraid of being caught in what looks like a lie to us. He seems to be smart enough to realize what you all have been asking of him (to type in the quote from his textbook). But he probably re-read the passage and realized that really dosen't support evolution and how he is stuck.Maybe he thinks that if he admits his mistake he will be thought bad of, persecuted, called a liar, etc. This may be because he is a Christian and as a Christian does value his own purity or sense of purity.I think, in the spirit of boot camp, that you all should let him know that fessing up or admiting to jumping to conclusions or even admiting to lying will not cause the wrath of EvC posters to come down on him but rather that he would be gaining a measure of respect for being honest.I know plenty of times I caught myself making a statement based on something that I thought was right but when I looked back I really hadn't read or understood it carefully enough. It can be embarassing especially when you do it in front of strangers who you are tring to both impress and pursuade.Maybe knowing this JF will either come out and be honest or actually deliver the quote.

---

-Nasser

quote:

---

I think, in the spirit of boot camp, that you all should let him know that fessing up or admiting to jumping to conclusions or even admiting to lying will not cause the wrath of EvC posters to come down on him but rather that he would be gaining a measure of respect for being honest.

---

I second this motion. I, for one, would have MORE respect for JF if he came out and said "I was mistaken". As I said in another post, if a textbook is using the Miller experiment to support evolution I will PERSONALLY email the publishers and chew them out on JF's behalf.

Here is a possibility that I just came up. What if JF is living in one of those small towns that were set up specifically for isolation from the outside world? You know, one of those towns for cults or so-called "real christians". What if the text book that he is using was written by a creationist?If JF isn't lying, it would make more sense that the author(s) and publishers are not part of mainstream science.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

You are violating Forum Guidelines by calling someone a liar.Cease and desist or you will be suspended.(unless you are a atheo-evo of course.)WT