The lies behind the Miller experiment

The point is that they don't mention that the origional atmosphere was wrong in my text book. I should have a quote from it availible the thursday after this one. They did mention that the atmosphere was wrong almost in entirerty, as Miller used a hydro gen rich atmosphere, in the issue of Pop Sci that I quoted, but just mention that methane may not have existed in earth's early atmosphere. no lie there.

So what if it was thought to be the right atmosphere then? That was fine then, but now, even though we arn't sure exactly what earth's early atmosphere consisted of, we are almost positive that it was not at all like the miller-urey experimentSecondly, the miller experiment does have a lot to do with evoloution. Without a life form to multiply get through many generations get better suited for for his enviroment, evoloution is impossible. Without divine intervention, 0 multiplied by 5 billion years still =0

A lot of material denied? Execpt for the tiny library, I get more material here than I did in public school, where I went for 9 years before coming here. If I wasn't able to resist them filling my brain with something, I would have been brainwashed by the pulic scools years before.

As I said in the topic, they have retried the experiment with current conditions, and the results were cyinide and formaldahyde. Also, the experiment did not have anything to do with anything after the poisonous elements have formed, how tey might have combined is not the point.

I'm a bad typer, so sue me

sure it's possible, but what's the chances. we haven't been able to create life artificially on earth using cyinide and fohmaldahyde, so the chances of it doing it by our planet, without our synthetic help, are astronomical. Whats the chances a radom letter generator will generate the comlete works of shakesphere? Probaly right arond the chances of life forming this way.

Yes, though the national geographic article did not mention the miller experiment (when I first skimed it over I thought it did) I have seen an evoloution movie, whown in public school, that premoted it as evidence for evoloution. This was many years back and I don't remeber the title or anything, so I am not using this as proof. My textbook has it the chapter about evoloution, and it is ment to be presented that way. I did also find a younger kids biology book which also uses the experiment in this way. I should also have the qoute of this around thursday.
I admit I was wrong in that it does not state outright that this if proof of evoloution, but the implied meaning that is taught comes pretty close.

One, my cyinide argument has not been proved wrong.Two, I will admit that my posts may have been misleading to some. This was not intentional, and if it is so misleading, I will try to be more clear, and will have proof posted soon, within the week almost definitly.Three, you and Ned are right, there are a whole bunch of cults that claim to be christian that blow up abortion clinics and stuff like that. There are also cults that claim to be Muslim, and crash airplanes into tall buildings in GOD's name. Luckily, I do not fall into either catorgory.

Ok, as I have not seen that these compounds are steps midway to amino acids, I will give that to you for now. However, the next question that is to be asked, is how they turned cyinide and formaldahyde. Because Nothing I had seen before the site that you gave said anything about these "organic elements," I have not done any research on the next steps. I mean, just like you can turn nuptunium into plutonium with a particle accelerator, (I think thats what they use, I could be wrong) you could probaly turn cyinide and forhmaldahyde into a synthecicly amino acid, (which I might add, is still tremendously far away from creating life) like changeing neptunium into plutonium, it won't happen in nature. If the following steps to make cyinide to an amino acid can happen in nature without help, then I will accept that and we can move on to debating whether or not an amino acid can turn into life.

Ok I think I have finally went wrong in my argument. I didn’t get the differences of biogenesis and evolution, and thank you nosey ned and Charles knight for pointing them out, as I had always lumped them together into one. At first, when I said evolution, I didn’t mean evolution, but biogenesis, and so was quick to respond yes this was used as proof of evolution. You explained later the difference, but I was mistaken on exactly what my books said. I was against the miller experiment The book quotes I promised, on from the Earth science book, and another from a younger kids biology book (Prentice Hall Science Explorer, ISBN 0-13-434490-1, Title: From Bacteria to Plants, (sounds like book about evolution to me, start with something, get better suited for your environment, however, it is mainly just different classifications of organisms) were both over a page long, which I think is over fair use. I have one written half way, if you know of another way to post the quote, please tell me. Neither of these say this experiment is proof of evolution but again, it is tilted that way. I hereby retract my claim that those textbooks say that this is proof of evolution instead of biogenesis. I stand by my original topic and will change from evolution to biogenesis. Sorry about all the confusion, misunderstandings, and unintentional lies I have caused my bad.ADMIN: If we could start this topic over it would be real helpful, sorry

Ok, sure, I agree to that, that it was still presented in textbooks wrongly was supposed to be the topic of this discussion.ADMIN: if you could change the topic to what nosey ned said, I would be greatfull