Miller and Urey Experiment: What has changed?

I don't know how a discussion of the age of the Earth began in a thread about the Miller/Urey experiment, but it should really be taking place in a thread where it would be on topic. Since you're taking a numerological approach, which I don't recall seeing before, I suggest proposing a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

I nust started posting here after a long recess of a few years, and I jumped in to these discussion with comments based upon where you people have taken the discussion.I notiuced immediately that most of these thread started n2009 and 2006 or before.It seems senseless to me that I should respond to the topic in the OP, since that author is long gone.People criticoizing facts that I present, and directly challanging me to defend what I posted is how we get into a discussion about the number of "days" marked in the rocks as a Clock marking off the division of time since the formation of the earth.Do you want to encourage free open intercourse between us, or pick one person or the other, and tell them specifically, to shut up and take the ignorance of the criticism without educating them????As far as Miller/Urey is concerned, much evidence for the theory is in the rocks, specifically with the rather recent realization that first life forms appeared in the Archean Era, just as son as the Earth had become solid.I would also complain that this site advertises Science Vs Creation as its drawing card
So, showing uninformed people that, indeed, there have, scientifically, been seven "days" or durations of Creation is quite justifiable, IMHO.It is my complaint that these people want to google geology, look at few charts, and then post again and again that what I am teaching them is incorrect as if such a cursory study of the subject warrants the space THEY are using.Perhaps I ought post permission to respond before answering back?

You aren't teaching. You are spreading false information to try to fit a numerological position.

Hi Kofh2u,It's interesting to hear that you believe old threads, particularly those where the originator is no longer around, do not need to stay on topic, but if you read over the Forum Guidelines you'll see there are no such qualifications. The rule to stay on topic is not conditional upon age of the thread or activity level of the originator or upon anything else. Certainly digressions onto relevant side issues are often necessary, but the age of the Earth is not a relevant side issue of subsequent research following the Miller/Urey experiment.If you'd like to discuss the age of the Earth and/or numerological issues, please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

So you are sayingthat unless somewhere in this thread someone has implied directly that this experiment has relevance to Genesis I should just assume its a discussion between science people and not really part of the site namesake about the relationship the discussionmight or might not have concerning Creationism?If that is the case, then, my apology.
I find that the Spontaneous Generation in Genesis is supported by Abiogenesis and Miller/Urey, so I will exit the discussion. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

[qs] My apology for offending you.
Certainly I have been learning, so teaching does exist here.I will leave you emminent authorities to this thread as the audience seems limited to your rather narrow point of view about how Miller/Urey relates tio the geology of the early planet planet and whether genesis suggests that the Spontaneous Generation of Bacteria took place during that third "day" of the Archeozoic Era. had I had the time to support that claim.Talk among yourselves and I will try to find a thread that is more directly related to my Science V Creationism. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Hi Kofh2u,Actually, I'm only saying that this thread isn't about the age of the Earth. It's about research subsequent to the Miller/Urey experiment. You're more than welcome to discuss the age of the Earth in any thread where it is the topic.

... but isn't every discussion inherently relative to BOTH the science and that science's relationship to Genesis?I mean, I am misled otherwise by the site name, Evolution Vs Creationism.The point being that, prior to Miller/Urey, the church and all people believed that organic chemistry was the realm of the divine, and though chemistry could manipulate the inorganic elements and compounds, the Vital Force was an essence which kept man out of Organic Chemistry.Until Urea was synthesized, that remained the rule and paradigm.Now at issue with the church people is whether the Life Force would suddenly appear should man assemble the same compounds in the same way as found in a living cell.Miller/Urey does not answer that question, but merely suggests that under ideal environmental conditions, the chemicals could come together.The experiment infers, but does not give any support to, the idea that this "coming together" would include that life ingredient that is clearly absent in the same chemical body which we see in every dead cell.
The supposition remains regardless of Miller/Urey, that life appears if the mere chemicals are gathered together. All this discussion takes place during the evening of the Archean Era and the morning of the Proterozoic Era.That is the point that I make.
That is, Miller/Urey supports what I say about Genesis.In that this exact time when the Plants appeared by a Spontaneous Generation, according to Genesis, is the "third day."What I am establishing is exactly that, that Genesis says life appeared at the same moment science also says it did.It would have been ideal at that exact time according to the Bible and science. Evolution makes no head way against Genesis in this matter of Miller/Urey.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Plants didn't come about through Spontaneous generation.In fact, there were animals before there were plants, so that actually is in direct conflict with Genesis.Again, nothing you posted is scientific.

Hi Kofh2u,Now you're merely using the Miller/Urey experiment as a launching point to discuss your own ideas about abiogenesis. This thread is about research related and subsequent to the Miller/Urey experiment.I'm removing your posting permissions in this forum, the Education and Creation/Evolution forum. If after you return from suspension you post off-topic or make bald claims with no evidence anywhere at EvC Forum again then I will suspend you permanently.If you'd like to stay here and discuss your ideas then stop trying to force discussion of your ideas into threads on other topics and instead propose new threads over at Proposed New Topics.