The lies behind the Miller experiment

This is a lie - out and out:please see:Message 8

quote:

---

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

---

Message 9

quote:

---

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

---

Message 33

quote:

---

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.

---

Message 42

quote:

---

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.

---

Message 66

quote:

---

Fine, let's say that the miller experiment has nothing to do with evoloution. This doesn't change the fact that it is being used as evidence in school courses. My point remains.

---

Message 67

quote:

---

That was my point, it may not have anything to do with evoloution, but IT IS BEING USED AS PROOF OF evolution.

---

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS CLAIM OTHERWISE YOU SHOW YOURSELF TO BE A FOOL OR A POOR LIAR This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-15-2004 02:15 PM

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?ADMINS: Isn't it time Jesusfreak went off to Bootcamp where he can get a primer in supporting an argument - more as a skill that will stand him in good standing rather than as a punishment.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-15-2004 06:04 PM

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

Please point to the element that calls Jesusfreak a liar - if not retract your allegation.

If that's the case - I'd be interested to see what they teach in those places.

Thanks for that Lam - the set text for their earth sciences coursesText: Earth Science: Geology, the Environment, and the Universe. Hess, Francess. (Glencoe/McGraw Hill; 2002).A book that does not link evolution with this experiment.JF - any luck finding a quote that supports your position?

But you still don't seem to be proving your original point - that the experiment was used to provide evidence for evolution.are you EVER going to provide any evidence for this?

quote:

---

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.

---

I can see that the brainwashing at the pulic scools never tooken.

Are we back to "better/worse"? I was under the impression that we had done that early in the thread?Are we chasing our tails?

Did you ever find ANY evidence that the experience was used for the support of evolution or have you dropped that claim?

How about you set yourself a target to provide one small piece of cited evidence that the miller experiment was used to promote evolution?

quote:

---

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.

---

Pretend you are a policeman and someone presented this evidence to you, what would you say?

quote:

---

This was many years back and I don't remeber the title or anything, so I am not using this as proof.

---

hah - that is a old lawyers trick - introduce an idea to the jury even when there is no evidence for it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Just tell us the name of the book - we can look at it in the same way we did the last one.

quote:

---

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.

---

I would suggest that we need a quote to assess that properly.I used to be a teacher and your excuses sound an awful lot like "the dog eat my homework".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-29-2004 03:50 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-29-2004 04:36 PM

oh boy! It's thursday - evidence day!

OK - are you ok on the different between the two - or would you like to discuss it/put some questions to us before we start the heavy debate again?bestCharles.

I'd just like to echo what Percy said - here's an example for you to chew on. Most internet forums are like learning to box on the street, sure you can pull off a few flash tricks but you just don't get the basics.Here at the EVCgym, you get to be worked over by number of professionals! (happened to me a number of times) In the process you get to pick up both the basics and the ability to hold your own in a debate.