The lies behind the Miller experiment

A quote on what? I have alredy quoted 2 scientist who both say that the atmosphere on earth at the time of creation was almost deffinitly not the hydrogen rich atmusphere that miller used.

Thank you will you tell the others that

Yes your right you can still get biomolocules, AS I EXPLAINED IN THE TOPIC MESSAGE! I feal like were going in circles here

No - a quote from one of those science text-books that links this experiment with evolution. You claimed to have one of those textbooks in your possession and said that you would quote the relevent passage when you had the time.Are you able to quote from such a textbook or will you retract your claim.

I didn't say it supported my claimbs, I said that was the book!

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

Hi JesusFreak,You're being asked to provide excerpts or images from your earth science textbook to support the claim that you made in Message 3: We would like to see evidence from this textbook that cites the Miller/Urey experiment as supporting evolution. Please provide excerpts or images.You also said this: That sounds fairly inaccurate. Please provide excerpts or images.In Message 37 you said you would quote the book: In Message 70 you said it again: It's been over a week, so get on with it. It didn't take me long to scan in the page from my son's biology book in Message 86, it certainly shouldn't take you long to do the same for your book, or at least type in the paragraphs.You also said this in Message 10: Can you back this up? What issue of the National Geographic. It's on-line, after all, we can easily look this up.You have to move on from just saying things like, "The Miller/Urey experiment is being improperly used to promote the theory of evolution." It's time to provide some concrete examples.By the way, did you read the biology page in Message 86? Does it agree with your own book?--Percy

I was talking about message 29 where you asked me if this was the book

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

Hi JESUS freak,I'm not sure why we're experiencing difficulties here. It would be greatly appreciated if you would read the very recent messages from me and Charles more carefully and give us a meaningful response. You claim to have a text book that misrepresents the Miller/Urey experiment. Please provide the text of that mispresentation.Let me try to be very clear by repeating this: Please provide the text of the misreprentation of the Miller/Urey experiment from your earth science text book.Also, please provide the text of the other misrepresentations you have mentioned, such as the February, 2004, issue of Popular Science, or the March, 1998, issue of National Geographic.If there's something about this request that you don't understand or that you need help with then please just let us know.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Producing amino acids WAS the purpose of the experiment. If you want to claim otherwise then produce some actual evidence - I've already provided the interview with Miller. And - as I've already pointed out - it was easier to create amino acids than UREY - who was the senior of the two - thought it would be. That was in the interview, to0.

Um. I did before I posted. Your message 65 says: Now listen carefully while I type slowly for you ... your reply was to this message: Now pay attention, because this is where you missed it the first and second time: I am not talking about the miller experiment, but others that have been done since then and are not based on it.Get it? independent. This means that your sources are useless to refute them because they don't deal with them. The science has moved on and the experiments have moved with them.Your apology is accepted, as I understand that many people are information challenged.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I have been reading this topic with great interest hoping someone would bring Hovind into this. I couldn't find any direct quotes, etc. I could trace directly to Hovind in JF's statements but am suspicious of the constant references to 'textbooks and lies'. Anyway, a search of Hovind's site found the following statement: -http://www.drdino.com/QandA/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}This brings up my point. So the creationist camp makes the claim that the Miller experiment is twisted and lied about to make the evolutionist claim seem valid. Well, reading the above makes me wonder who is twisting the facts and lying. The amino acids were dead? Are they alive in the first place? Who ever claimed this experiment created life? How does this experiment disprove evolution could occur? How did evolutionists hide the truth?The fact is that a thorough reading of this shows only two things that ARE true (loosely defined). Miller had a sparking device and proteins are composed of left-handed aa's.The take home message to would-be evangelicals is that the people who supply your informations are not honest, often lie, and are using you for fodder for their own personal gain and political aspirations. Believe or not (best to learn it here where you can get the views of a diverse knowledge base) LIFE IS NOT A CHICK TRACT where evolutionist are deluded megalo-maniacs whose belief system is going to crumble the first time someone says dinosaur tracks were found with human or other such nonesense.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-16-2004 05:54 PM

ive gone through the whole registration on this website so that i may spread some light on the subject, being a chemist, i can certainly explain the results of a CHEMICAL experiment (creating life wasnt involved!!)
1. the experiment was run using methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water.
2. the experiment was run to test a theory of formation of life, which has nothing to do with evolution.
3. the products of the experiment were simple amino acids.
4. theres been a lot of skepticism from the scientific community, due to the fact it was reaction carried out under a constant flow of electricity
5. as for cyanide and formaldehyde being poisenous, thats completely untrue. life manifests itself in insanely inhospitable ways, for insance, deinococcus radiodurans, are able to stand radiation of 1.5 million rads, about enough radiation to kill everyone whos ever posted on this forum!!
6. the experiments results are invalid, because at the time the composition of the earth atmosphere was thought to be different then it is today.

Hi, mb! (May I call you mb?) It's nice to have another chemist here! Look around and then jump in!