|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The lies behind the Miller experiment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Ned,
quote:I demand a recount! regards,Esteban "Green Party" Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
Nosy Ned
Call for a poll. I would be interested in the results. The more the merrier I say. John Amerpohl Davison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Permit me to remind everyone of the true purpose of this thread.
Admin writes: JF writes: I was talking about message 29 where you asked me if this was the book 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. Still patiently, but getting close to running out of patience, waiting for anything that JF or his breathrens can come up with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Perhaps people could record their opinions at the end of your thread about the PEH (or whatever).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
I will work on setting up an actual polling place. Can others give me suggested wording for the question and answers?
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hmmm ...
old reply to JesusFreak:http://EvC Forum: Information no answer, = no refutation ... (sigh) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JESUS freak Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
JF
The point is that they don't mention that the origional atmosphere was wrong in my text book. But that really doesn't matter, does it. First, it WAS what some thought the atmosphere might be like at the time the experiment was done. So even if it was incorrect, it was not dishonest. It was a valid, successful experiment. Second, the beginnings of life are not part of the Theory of Evolution. The TOE simply is our best theory of what happened after life began and is continuing today. It too may well be wrong, that's the way science works. And if a better explaination comes along, that will not make the TOE a lie, simply wrong. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JESUS freak Inactive Member |
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 experiment
Secondly, 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JESUS freak Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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 experiment Let's look at what you've said. If the conditions that they used were correct, to the best of their knowledge at the time, then the experiment was a success and not a lie. Surely even you must admit that?
Secondly, 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 Why? The Theory of Evolution says nothing and has nothing to do with how life started. Even if the first life was through divine intervention, the TOE is still the best explaination of what happened since then. Also, you sem to still hold the notion that evolution has to do with things getting better. That's simply wrong. Things change. There is no purpose to the change, no direction, no better. If the random change happens to help the critters survive to reproduce, then it's successful. But it is not directed, not better or worse. It is the critter lives and has children or doesn't. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT CARE HOW LIFE ORIGINATED.
We can grant that God was behind the origin of life. His methodology may or may not have had anything to do with what was discover in the Miller/Urey experiment, or any subsequent simular experiments. TWO SEPERATE STEPS: 1) Life somehow originated.2) Life somehow evolved. The fact and theory of the second does not depend on the hows of the first. That is why the hypothesies/theories of lifes origins are a seperate issue relative to the hypothesies/theories of evolution. So whether the Miller/Urey experiment was valid or not is a moot point, in the context of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not care. Moose This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-22-2004 02:25 PM Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: I can see that the brainwashing at the pulic scools never tooken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024